Showing posts with label UPenn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UPenn. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Animal Attraction



From Reuters:

Rather than spending Valentine's Day with their partner, one-fifth of adults would prefer to be with their pet...

"Likely defying stereotype, the desire to spurn a partner for a pet is not rooted in gender but rather age and even there it seems the older you are, the least likely it is you'd choose pet over partner," said Wright.

"While there are country differences, it's more of a personal choice made by younger and less affluent individuals."

On a country-by-country basis, residents of Turkey were the most likely, at 49 percent, to choose their pet over their spouse or partner.

So people really romance their animals in Turkey, eh?

That *study* reminds me of that Hungarian classmate of mine at UPenn...

My roommate and I got him to admit that his *first love* was a sheep!

Roommates - It was a 'cultural thing', right?

AnimalLover - YEAH. YEAH. Everyone does it!



Shocker!!! ↑

Friday, January 22, 2010

Moving Goalposts



From City-Journal:

What percentage of Georgia’s fourth-graders are good readers? It seems to depend on whom you ask. The state will tell you that 85 percent of them met or exceeded the proficiency benchmark on its 2007 test. Not too shabby. On the other hand, only 28 percent of fourth-graders in Georgia scored high enough to be considered proficient on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), an exam administered by the U.S. Department of Education that is usually regarded as the gold standard in education testing. The big difference results from where the two tests set their proficiency bars. Georgia sets its bar pretty low—so low that barely literate students can score high enough to be deemed proficient. The NAEP has a much higher standard; in fact, a student labeled "proficient" by Georgia could fail to score above "basic" on the federal test.

A recent federal study noted that 15 states lowered at least one of their proficiency standards in math and reading between 2005 and 2007.

But the law [No Child Left Behind] has a gaping loophole: states get to define proficiency however they want. A state can thus meet NCLB targets by defining proficiency down; toughening its standards, by contrast, handicaps its ability to meet the federal requirements.



What do ya know!?

I found a pic of my fellow UPenn alumni tossing the goal-posts into the Schuylkill river!

If I recall, University officials once tried to put *Vaseline* all over the posts in an effort to stop the students from tearing down them down (kids climbed up them to topple them at first) - and costing the school thousands of dollars for repair/replacement.

But this was to no avail. There were, obviously, many students (e.g. English majors and urban planners) at Penn who knew how to operate with such a substance.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

A Coach To Watch?

I meant to comment on this one last week:



As the story says, Temple's college basketball team recently upset #3 ranked Villanova.

So why is this blogworthy?

Well, Temple is now coached by Fran Dunphy, a man whom I watched coach my alma mater, UPenn, for years. As far as I could tell, Dunphy was a coaching genius. I continually marveled at what he did there, competition-wise, with some real scrubs. (Though he did have a couple guys get some run in the NBA in Jerome Allen and Matt Maloney).

But the rest of Penn's rosters were constituted of nobodies - nobodies who for years played over their heads. In my calculus, it just had to be the coach.

Three years ago, Fran Dunphy left Penn for cross-town (sports) rival Temple - a school not hampered with *Ivy League academic standards*. Obviously, Dunphy was going to get a chance to work with a significantly deeper talent pool. At the time I predicted he'd flourish.

One game certainly does not a career make, no less a season. But I'll be keeping a occasional eye on Fran's Temple Owls, their record anyway; and won't be the least surprised if he makes a real name for himself there.

Penn has a somewhat of a storied coaching history. NBA coaches Dick Harter and Chuck Daly both did stints there, at the Palestra.



One of Dunphy's *scrubs* was a light-skinned, cocky-a$$, pogo-stick by the name of Donald Moxley.

The guy ended up a starter, albeit only late in his career, and even hit a game-winning shot in a Big Five game at the Spectrum if memory serves me.

Nevertheless, even more prominently, he starred in the capstone of MY basketball playing career. Let's just say that the gap between his self-image and his ability was cavernous. And these types, LONG before my first blog post, were always in my sights!

So during one pickup game, he flew through the lane right past two tall trees,...did some dipsy-doodle, double-clutch....I came out of nowhere and rejected his weak poop not only off the entire court, but I sent it so far down a long hallway that we had to send an Asian kid down to fetch the ball!!! Everyone was ooohing and ahhhing. Quietly he muttered something about it being a *good block*.

Luckily one of my buddies was there and witnessed me schooling one of Dunphy's guys....otherwise there'd be NO WAY any of the scoffers would have believed me.

See also - Obsessions Of Yore.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Online Book Rec



On the unending list of *books I need to read* is still the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.

I was pleased to discover the other day that it is online for free!

Autobiography of Ben Franklin

Although, most of the time, the bound copy is more convenient - take to park, the comfort station, read in bed, etc.

How smart was that of somebody to put that classic online amidst Google ads?

There's no copyright or trademark issues with stuff that old - I don't think anyway.

Anyways, I'll probably just print out Ben's autobio!

BTW, I just learned that the actual aphorism was not *a penny saved is a penny earned*! No it was:

A penny saved is two pence dear.

[Though there seems to be some more argument now over whether he said "dear" or "clear". Whatever, right?]

Monday, February 25, 2008

Homeschooling and Unschooling

One subject that I devote considerable mental energy to these days is the education of my young children (still only 3 years old and 20 months). I registered with some home schooling online forum so I could learn more about exactly what these parents do on a daily basis. There was an interesting post today that I would like to share:



What is unschooling anyway?

I can't pretend to be an expert on unschooling, I can only say that its been an amazing gift for our family. I've been unschooling my son (who is 10 yrs old) for three years now. Unschooling will look different in different families, and "radical unschooling" simply means extending the philosophy of unschooling (that children will learn what they need to know when they are ready and want to learn it) into every other aspect of life (i.e. children will go to sleep when they are tired, eat when they are hungry, and will learn to be a functioning, helpful member of a family/household without being forced/required to do things like chores, given punishments, limited on tv/videogames, etc.) Radical unschooling could also be called Mindful Parenting, or respectful parenting (although one could be parenting mindfully, and their children attend school). In any case, I cringe when I hear parents say "We unschool except for math" or "we only do two hours of seatwork a day, then we unschool" or "we unschool on the weekends" or "we unschool, and I only require "X" amt of written work each week, but they get to choose the subject!" While all of that might work for a family, its not really true unschooling. That's like saying you're a "little bit pregnant"...if you're following a curriculum, or requiring work, it may be very relaxed homeschooling, or eclectic homeschooling, but not unschooling.

A couple of excellent websites to learn about unschooling are:

Joyce Fetteroll's site: link

Joyce has a daughter (i think she's an older teen?), and has been unschooling for quite some time. Her site has TONS of info about what unschooling is, how to get started, positive spins on chores, food, sleep behavior, etc. Enough info here to keep a new unschooler reading for some time!

Sandra Dodd's Website:
link

(Click around on the links to different pages, to read interesting
essays on chores, college, videogames, and much much more.)
Sandra is a mom whose three children (I think they are 14,17, and 20 now) have always been unschooled. Sandra is a former school teacher, and author of the book Moving a Puddle. I've seen her speak several times at two separate Live and Learn unschooling conferences, and she's really funny.

When I first began unschooling, and was asked what it meant, I would say that it was homeschooling in a child-led, hands-on way. That instead of learning math from a workbook or science from a textbook we'd bake cookies (with all that measuring )and plant a garden (photosynthesis and all that)....and while both of those activities have value, after a few years of unschooling I've come to learn that unschooling isn't really *that*, it isn't really a way to "teach" your child that is fun or hands on. Now I realize that when we bake cookies its because baking cookies is fun and we want to eat cookies, or if we plant in the garden its because we find joy in that. I, as the unschooling parent, TRUST that learning is happening with each activity because children are learning all the time. I don't place any more value in an hour of my child reading a book than I do in an hour of him playing on online computer game or videogame. It's all learning. It's all wonderful. It's my job as an unschooling parent to recognize the learning that is taking place, see its value, and
encourage my child's passions.

Homeschooling parents usually say to me "But when left alone, my child will just play video games all day" or "unschooling is great for a highly self-motivated child, but mine is lazy and needs to be exposed to other things." That's another vital component to a successful, vibrant unschooling home, that gets missed from the definition of "unschoolers don't use curriculum"....the concept of *strewing*. Strewing, as coined by Sandra Dodd, means that an unschooling parent will create a home environment that is rich and interesting, fun and hands-on, an environment that will spark new interests and connections. Unschoolers probably have the same types of materials in their home as most other homeschooling families:maps, globe, microscope, blocks, art supplies, musical instruments, books, games, etc. But unschoolers also see everything else around them as fodder for learning. I can't tell you how many conversations about history, politics, sociology, anthropology, science, economics, etc. has been sparked by something in a videogame, online role playing game, tv show/dvd, song on the radio, comic book, etc. And yet these are the very same things that some parents try to limit in favor of more so-called "educational" items. Another vital component in an unschooling home is Trust. A parent needs to take a leap of faith, and trust that their child is learning. This is usually the biggest one for many parents to overcome. They have to let go of the "school voice" in their head, the one that wants to tell their child to put down that controller and go do something "educational" or worries that if their child isn't reading, writing, or "doing math" on the same schedule as other kids, they'll never get into college. A new unschooling parent needs to give their child time to deschool, which often looks like sitting around doing "nothing" and they have to deschool themselves as well. I would say another vital component is Joy—how to get it and how to keep it. Its Priority Number One in our household, making sure everyone is happy. My son and I both have to time to follow our interests, separately and together, we have open communication, and a completely punishment-free home. We try to figure out ways that everyone can get what they want. Joyce Fetteroll wrote "Always Say Yes. Or Some Form of Yes" and it's a philosophy I try to live by.

Unschooling can look very confusing to those on the outside looking in. It might look like the parent isn't doing anything at all, or it may look like the child is spending "all day" on activities that have "dubious" educational purpose. Often, people will confuse not *requiring* something (chores, reading, bedtimes) with the child not willingly doing those things. (Just because I don't expect/require my son to clean, he quite happily does so. Just because I don't insist my son have "good manners" doesn't mean he refuses to say Please or Thank You. Indeed I have my suspicions that it is precisely *because* I don't require, that I get so much willing cooperation from my son.)

I've seen the positive impact unschooling and mindful parenting has had on my son, such as going from a "nonreader" and one who hates to write, to a child who willingly and passionately does both. I've seen our parent-child relationship go from one filled with power struggles, yelling, stress, and the occasional spanking, to a home filled with respect, love, kindness, and the real sense that we are both on the "same side" instead of me vs. my child. I've seen what happens when hundreds of kids, all of whom are being raised similarly to my son, are "set loose" in a hotel for four days, to play, learn, and live, and it's a beautiful sight. (Particularly touching that in an entire four-day period in a hotel at an unschooling conference with probably 600+parents and children of all ages, I did not see ONE child spanked, yanked, yelled at, demeaned or talked to disrespectfully. And the children were bright, outgoing, imaginative, friendly, and kind.)

That's unschooling in a nutshell.

Katherine




Speaking of NUTS, Katherine's last parenthetical remark is beyond ludicrous.

"I did not see ONE child spanked, yanked, yelled at, demeaned or talked to disrespectfully..."

It certainly says more about her own scarred(?) childhood and hypersensitivities than what may be a more optimal way to impart knowledge and skills to your kids. Is she serious, talk to a child "disrespectfully"???

For every ideological movement on planet Earth, there's always an element that takes it too far.

Faced with these nitwits, we all have to be careful not to reject an idea based on some of its proponents.

I should point out that "unschooling" is one of many varied methods of homeschooling. The two are not one and the same. As you could gather from above, unschooling is a completely libertine, child-led approach to education. (Economic discussions prompted by video games???) Plenty of homeschoolers use standard curricula, text books, and strict schedules to teach their kids.

Here's a broad breakdown of the reasons why families choose to homeschool:



Sorry it's not such a great chart. Click on it to enlarge.

This survey asserts that 48.9% of parents chose to homeschool because they believe they can give the kids a "better education" at home.

The second highest reason people opt out of mass schooling is for "Religious reasons" - 38.4%.

As far as I am concerned, if you don't think you can teach your kids a whole lot more than they'd pick-up from a 1-on-30 teaching ratio then you are most likely an uneducated Moron yourself. Furthermore, you and your brood will remain self-fufilling, circular arguments for government education for generations!!!

Like I said at the beginning of this post, I have done a considerable amount of research on homeschooling and am almost 100% certain that I will give it a go. The pathetic resistance to homeschooling should, all by itself, almost be enough to sway one's mind. I would confidently rank arguments against homeschooling even below the low carb arguments of anthropomorphic global warming. Click here to find the "socialization" myth debunked - for the billionth time.

Last week I read a book titled: Real-Life Homeschooling: The Stories of 21 Families Who Teach Their Children at Home. These types of testimonial books are more raw data than literature. For the most part, the profiled homeschoolers all got flack from their parents (kids' grandparents) and various other friends and relatives. When you do something as boldly self-righteous and morally superior as reject mass schooling, the insecure are guaranteed to take offense. When it comes to "sensitivity" and "taking offense" I always offer up this analogy:

If a three-year old kid came up to you and called you "stupid", there's hardly a chance you would take offense, right?

Now if someone older, more within your peer group, made the same allegation, any little reaction you have admits to a degree of credibility for the accuser.


The unwitting fact is, most people who outsource the mind control of their children do realize its folly. And when you homeschool (in their face) their guilt will fester into feelings that well, aren't that grown-up.

Homeschooling will especially agitate your parents. They don't want to think for a second that they were derelict in sending you and your siblings to government or private mass schooling factories. While all the homeschoolers in the book had to endure some social resistance, all but one of the profiled families' parents (et al) eventually came around loving the idea of homeschooling. (In a couple of cases, family members reported the homeschooling to the authorities. One man in Jacksonville was arrested, sent to jail, and fell into crippling debt fighting for his homeschooling rights in court. Years later he found out it was his mother-in-law who dimed him out! This was 25 years ago, before homeschooling was accepted by state legislatures. Though, without a doubt, mother-in-laws have since devised sundry new ways to terrorize.)

The one family who couldn't ever win over "Grandma" to homeschooling described her as a "career public school teacher" who was just extremely defensive of the system she devoted her life's work to. This is sort of where I am at with my own mother. I've known for a while now not to even broach the subject with her - herself a high school teacher. Her ego is, also, just way too wrapped up in what she does (or rather, what she thinks she does).

Her aversion to homeschooling isn't based on any in-depth research; she hasn't read any testimonials; she hasn't noticed homeschoolers winning National Spelling Bees. She's totally ignorant of the sordid history of mass compulsory schooling. Heck, she can't even find any time to read my blog.

No, her tireless argument for sending kids to factory schools goes like this, "We have one kid in town that I know who's homeschooled....The mother can't even spell."

There you have it. Send your kids to those government schools and they will get science teachers like my mother who thinks "for example" is rigorous PROOF.

Nonetheless, I'd still have been better off being homeschooled. Try not to extrapolate my mother's intelligence quotient from this one issue - it'd be ironically ignorant!

ALL the homeschoolers stridently claim that in the process of teaching their kids, that they themselves have stretched their minds to new heights.

I wouldn't doubt that for a second. What I have learned in the past 18 months or so about education: its theories, practices, and history, has been staggering. This one little door that John Taylor Gatto opened for me has already aroused my brain and fundamentally altered the course my family's lives.



And y'all remember that when I inveigh against mass schooling I am excoriating a system in which I thrived. I graduated early from UPenn (currently tied for 5th in those insipid rankings) with a double major and GPA high enough to merit an embellishing Latin phrase.

The unsettling truth is that the system held me back; it stunted my potential and sapped my humanity. I learned how to play the game - how to ace tests. I didn't attain or retain any real knowledge; I wasn't sculpted into a lifelong learner; and I certainly didn't develop any perspective on the real world into which I graduated. So much for a liberal arts education!

The realization that I was essentially brain-dead from ages 20-30 depresses the absolute hell out of me. For this I squarely blame the "school system" I was unfortunately born into.

On the bright side, at least I didn't wake up when I was forty or fifty.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Tales Of Facebook Stalking



Recently, I sent a YouTube clip titled The Facebook Skit to my college buddies and we laughed our collective asses off.

The Facebook was, at least back in 1992, a headshot photo compilation of incoming college freshman. After the University of Pennsylvania admitted me, sometime that spring or summer before the first semester, I received a notice in the mail asking me to send in a picture of myself for inclusion in the book. Like most others, I sent in my high school senior portrait. Upon arriving at Penn in late August, I found my "facebook" already sitting in my mailbox.

What a profound resource that was. First of all, if you met some girl while you were inebriated, in the oft chance you remembered her name or something about her appearance, you could research her further via the facebook. Back then, only name, matriculating high school, hometown and current dorm were among the data provided. But this was way better than nothing. And of course you could get a firmer grasp of her physical attractiveness than your memory would otherwise permit - with allowances made for the freshman 15. You could see whether she was in Wharton, the College of Arts and Sciences, the School of Engineering, or the Nursing School. And you could ethnically profile her by her last name. Annoyingly, many kids out of the 2,000 undergrads did not send in pictures of themselves; in those cases stalkers were out of luck.

Watch the video and then I'll elaborate some more.



Obviously, the facebook (or meatbook) has migrated to the internet and been greatly enhanced.

This parody really hit home for me and my buddies because it was done by a UPenn a cappella group. We stalked girls on those same bricks of Locust Walk - only we couldn't so easily learn the hobbies of young ladies and "poking" them had to be done over the telephone. (To "poke" essentially means to say hello in computer programming speak. Did you think it meant something else?)

At the 2:45 mark of the video you see the stalker's time-annotated map of where and when his victim would likely be. One particular friend of mine basically did the same exact thing for a blonde chick he was smitten by. He knew where the young lady ate, at what precise times, where her classes where (Penn is a huge school), and thus where she'd likely be walking on say Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10:30am when her Management 101 class at Steinberg-Dietrich Hall let out. Anytime someone in our clique saw her, the "sighting" was immediately relayed to the stalker so he could update the map. When a new semester started, it was a veritable mad scramble to learn her new schedule. Our friend essentially turned all of his buddies into accomplices. I occasionally google that particular blonde even to this day. I can't help it - even though I never liked her a little bit.

Are you a loser if you sit in your room and stare at the facebook? As Bill O'Reilly would say, let the folks at home decide. For the record, though I was only at Penn for 3.5 years, and there's really only an avenue for you to purchase your own class' facebook, I actually procured five year's worth of facebooks (1991-1996). I would disclose my methods but am unsure of the statute of limitations on federal mail tampering.

Real studly men needn't have ever opened a facebook to research or stalk fair ladies. But for most of these guys, college (and high school) was the apex of their lives. What a crying shame to peak so early in life. They'll most likely be the parents screaming at Little League and Pop Warner games, trying to vicariously reclaim the glory of their own lives through their children. The analogue to this guy is the mother who gets disturbingly excited for her own daughters' proms. If you've ever seen such an animal, you'll have to agree that these moms are pathetically trying to recapture a part of their own youth.

So yeah, I spent some time thumbing through the facebook. My personal stalking of a few girls never approximated the depravity of my buddy's; and it would have happened even if the facebook didn't exist. Blaming the facebook for stalking is like blaming spoons for making Rosie O'Donnell fat. I have no qualms admitting stuff like this. It's not like I am Rich Karlgaard, who admitted to zillowing his old girlfriends' houses. He wanted to see if any of them "did better" than him for a spouse. The difference between me and Rich is, number one, I am not a publisher of Forbes. And number two, CaptiousNut is an alias.



Last anecdote.

In April of 1996, even though I had already graduated in December and started market-making on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, I went to Spring Fling, UPenn's annual drunken bash. Late at night, I was in a High Rise elevator with my buddy, the depraved stalker described above. Some random girl got into the elevator with us and my buddy struck up a conversation. (all names are pseudonyms)

Stalker - Hi Lisa.

Lisa - Hi. [deep pause] Do I know you?

Stalker - Yeah I am Bob. We met at a frat party.

Lisa - Which one? [with a palpable cynicism]

Stalker - I am not really sure.

Lisa - When was it? [with prosecutorial conviction]

Stalker - I don't know....I was really drunk....I don't remember.

The young lady was not buying any of it. She just wanted to get off the elevator and did so as fast as possible. What a b*tch. It's astounding the prejudice often shown towards men in our society who've recently consumed a fifth of Jack Daniels. I turned to my buddy,

CaptiousNut - Who the heck was that?

Stalker - That was Lisa Smith.

CaptiousNut - Who?

Stalker - How could you not know who she is? She is right next to you in the facebook.

I was blown away.

How the heck could he recognize a girl in the wee hours of the morning at the end of a massive drinking binge? A girl he admitted he'd never even seen in person during four years of school, no less from a high school picture that was four if not five years old?

For crying out loud, there were over 2,000 students in our class - almost 10,000 total undergrads.

Photographic memory? Complete loser? Both?

For the most part he was staring at my facebook collection, so I unwittingly enabled his perversion. Sometimes I would come back to the dorm and find him laying on his bed with the facebooks fanned out atop his unopened text books. Whatever a black light would reveal about my facebook collection....let's just say that I am not really interested in learning.

(Ironically, a black light is also known as "Wood's light".)

Go ahead and judge us Penn Quakers. But you probably have no idea how terrible the selection of girls was at that school. We needed every possible resource. If you went to a school full of desirable women like Texas or Florida State, then this post will surely be lost on you.