Thoughts on teaching

It's funny - and sad - how this semester my largest people problems are not students but colleagues.

First off, the whole mess with the not-living-up-to-expectations recent hire. It's going to be ugly, I suspect. We may see an epic flounce, leaving the rest of us to unexpectedly cover classes we should not have to.

Now, one of my other colleagues comes to me: "You know X? How he pushed for this forced schedule in that class we all teach, and how he pushed for certain assignments? He isn't doing any of them. He's not keeping up with the schedule, he's not doing the assignments with the class. His students are unprepared for lab because they haven't had that topic yet."

And you know, my main reaction? A great big "FFS."

I don't have the energy for this. All my energy right now is directed at teaching my overload, working with my research students, doing my own research: in other words, what I am supposed to be doing, what I am paid to do.

Yeah, yeah - it's a problem. If students are unprepared for labs, that's a serious issue. (And that tells me - since I teach a lab section for that class - maybe I need to intensify the pre-lab instructions a bit more, rather than giving a rough outline and assuming they've seen it in lecture, simply because I know MY lecture students have.)

My colleague also noted: "He cancels class a lot. And he lets people out early. And he softballs things." Okay, hold on there, kimosabe. I don't need to know this. We're getting peer review of our teaching in the coming year and if that happens, it'll come out in the wash. But I don't like gossip and I don't like hearing bad things about other people second-hand.

But he went on: "He gets really high teaching evaluations" (True: as part of the "peer review" we do see each other's portfolios, and his average scores are a bit higher than mine). "And he's doing it by slacking off and pandering! If we ever go to a merit-pay system here, he will be rewarded and people like you will be hurt!"

And again: "FFS." I told my colleague what my dad always told me as a kid: "Life's not fair." And I told him, "Merit pay will not mean they cut the pay of people; it just means that some of us will get smaller raises." (And frankly, I do more research than the person in question, and I INVOLVE STUDENTS IN RESEARCH, which I think will actually count for more).

But you know what? As much as I'd LIKE to have really high evaluations, I would definitely NOT want it to be because I felt I was pandering to the students, doing junk like cancelling class for the first day of deer or turkey season, or letting them out early on Fridays, stuff like that. I have high standards. The students who are really serious appreciate my high standards: I regularly have people coming back from, e-mailing me from, or seeing me at meetings after they've gone on to grad school, and they thank me for the preparation I gave them. For every complaint of "too much math!" I get in ecology, I get someone else coming to me and saying, "Thank you for emphasizing life tables so heavily; I'm taking a population biology class right now and I understand the material better than many of the other students because of what you taught."

To quote my father again: "It's better to be right than to be popular." I think what I am doing is the right thing: keeping high standards, not cancelling class frivolously. (I cancel if I am ill - either if I'm fairly sure I'm contagious or if I know I'd be useless teaching (like if I have a migraine). Or I cancel once a semester to go to scientific meetings. But that's ONE day.)

I may not be the most popular person with the general student populace, but I think among the serious students, I'm fairly well respected. (And I think it's preferable to be respected and not "loved," than to be "loved" and not respected, when you're a prof.)

But you know? The whole deal with this guy slacking off: I'm not going to worry about it. One thing I have learned in recent years is that there is exactly one person whose behavior I have influence over, and that's my own. So all I can do is keep doing what is right, and not worry about what other people are doing; to trust that things will work out.

My colleague did say he was going to slack off (well, he didn't use those words) a little bit, and tried to persuade me to, as well. But that's not right! Just because one person is being a slacker and we think that's wrong, and we think it's unfair that we may be working harder than he is - that's no reason to screw over the students. And I told him as much, that what was important to me were the students learning what they needed to know, and feeling like I was doing a good job. And for me, the high level (some might say, too high) level of diligence and responsibility I bring to teaching give me the feeling that I am doing a good job and doing what I am supposed to. And if merit pay comes, and I don't get raises that are as big because I'm criticized on evaluations for being a hard-ass, that's just how it will be.

And it's done

No, it wasn't the "confront" meeting, it was the "decide what the hell we are going to do" meeting.

Turns out the person in question has been a much bigger problem than I was aware of. Apparently they have driven away a couple of potential majors - good students, too - because of their horrible attitude. And the person who brought this forward is someone who doesn't teach the class in question, who has no skin in the game, so to speak.

We came to a decision, it's not going to be a happy one. Suffice it to say I may choose to be absent from campus (if I can) at the time the person is told of the decision. This is someone with a somewhat difficult temperament.

I'm sad and I'm sorry it worked out this way, but after seeing some of the documented incidents I'm kind of gobsmacked that a person would think they could operate in the way this person is. This person was also told that what they were doing was not up to standards and they apparently never listened.

I guess I worry TOO much about doing a "good job," this is apparently a person who doesn't worry at all.

We have a few months before we do anything final.

This is also the person I complained about complaining how the students didn't "respect" them. I don't know. I know I have a few students who don't respect me but I know I also have some that do. You earn the respect you get by treating people with kindness (and firmness, if necessary) and helping them. (And not talking smack about other students or faculty).

I don't know. This just makes me tired and sad and apprehensive, but I think we did make the right decision here.

Lord give me strength

The potentially-nasty meeting, where the person who isn't "living up to standards" (according to another person) will be confronted is in five minutes.

I am telling myself, over and over again: mouth shut, ears open. You may learn something valuable this hour. And I'm also reminding myself: this is not a class you teach nor have you ever taught. Your opinion is not significant and offering it will only prolong the horror.

I'm not normally given to violent thoughts

But I'd kinda like to punch David Axelrod in the mouth right now. Mr. "We're going to start a subtle smear campaign, and when someone in the news actually calls us on our facts, we're going to tell them the burden of (dis)proof is on them."

Idiots, all of 'em.

Freedom of speech

I've long thought that the real test of freedom of speech is not speech that most people like; not even speech that many people find challenging and difficult. The true test is the speech that most people despise.

I think that's what's at issue in this current case. The one with a group of Kansans who call themselves "Baptists." (But aren't like any Baptist I've ever met). The ones who protest at military funerals.

(I even hesitate to write about it. They deserve no publicity - which is, I am sure, partly what they want. And I suspect that also partly what they want is to upset people into committing violence or whatever against them, so they can then sue: it's my understanding a number of them are lawyers).

That said, I hope the Supreme Court doesn't vote to abridge their free speech. Even though what they are doing is utterly despicable. Even though I find myself frequently praying that they would all wake up some morning and realize, "Good Lord, what are we DOING?" and realize how wrong they have been, and stop. As much as I think they deserve any beating they receive at the hands of a citizen sick of their shenanigans. As much as it would take all of my composure and all of my patience and self-control NOT to shout obscenities and flip the double-bird at them if they showed up in my town.

Because when we start banning certain forms of speech, we enter into a world where it's hard to stop banning.

Instead, I think we should support the Patriot Guard. And any other groups that work to try to shield the grieving family from the protesting idiots. And I think if the protesting idiots do, in any way, overstep an actual law - like invasion of privacy or disturbing the peace - then they should be hit, and hit hard, and hit every time they violate the law.

It does make me sad that they're getting so much publicity right now; I am sure that's what they want.

Still, "Argh."

Bingley is right. (Then again: If I've been cc'd in on all kinds of stuff, and there IS a wrongful-termination lawsuit, that means I can't be called to testify, no?)

I don't know. I find it kind of - disrespectful? - to expect other people to take sides in a situation that doesn't really impact them.

I see this a lot, though: students trying to get me to talk smack about other profs, things like that.

I don't know. We meet next week. I'm not looking forward to it. I've already decided to mostly keep my mouth shut, and, if pressed to contribute, remark that I've not taught the class in question, I haven't seen any of the issues first-hand, so I don't feel it's my place to speak.

Argh. No.

One of our newer hires is apparently causing problems. Or, one or two of my colleagues is having problems with this person.

The thing is: the issue involves one of our large intro classes. A class I do not teach. I have not seen any of these people in action in the class, I don't know the new hire that well (and I don't know one of the complainers that well. The other one, yeah, I'd give his concerns some credence.)

The thing is: THIS IS A CLASS I DO NOT TEACH. I have nothing to do with it.

I just wish the main complainer (the person I don't know so well) would stop cc'ing me on all of the e-mails documenting this new hire's suckiness. I don't want to hear it. This person needs to go directly to the person they are having problems with and work it out with them. I do not get involved in these kinds of cat fights.

If it escalates to "we have to have a meeting to address this," I will go. But I will sit, with my mouth shut, and say nothing. I may even abstain from voting (giving lack of firsthand knowledge as my justification) if a vote to renew/not-renew the person's contract comes up.

But the thing is: criminy. I'm teaching 15 hours here. A couple days a week I approach having a 12-hour day on campus (one day a week I actually have it.) I am too busy and too tired (and getting too old) do deal with these kinds of things. I honestly can't tell if it's a real problem or if it's just a case of "I don't like this person, they rub me the wrong way(1) and I want to make their life miserable" or what.

(1) (The person in question CAN be abrasive. And has been a little whiny in the past, to the point where I was gritting my teeth to keep from saying something like, "Cowgirl up. We all have things in our life that are tough; we all get stuck with classes that are bad sometimes.")

I love teaching - some of my students this semester are a real joy. But I could do without some of the petty politicking.

ETA: There's been a short-notice meeting called for tomorrow. And the person in question is not on the e-mail list. Ugh. Lord grant me strength, and give me the wisdom to keep my fool mouth shut.

Strong leaders, weak leaders

Something that happened in my life this week cemented something in my mind that I'd been thinking about, but not really explicitly stated to myself.

The difference between strong and weak leaders is, in part, how they deal with criticism.

Strong leaders have their goals in mind. The goals are firm, they know the goals are good, they can articulate the justification for those goals. When someone criticizes them, they follow one of three roads:

1. They ignore the criticism, if it's really unfounded, and especially if the critic is one of those sorts of people who finds fault with everything.

2. They sit down with the critic and either try to clarify (if they think they've been misunderstood) or try to come to some kind of compromise. Or convince the critic that he or she is wrong, based on facts.

3. If there really is a problem, they own up to it.

It's one of the hardest things I know, when someone is criticizing you - especially if it's the snipey kind of criticism - to stand up and say, "Yes. There are problems with this program, and I need to work to fix them." or to say "I screwed up here, I'm sorry, it will be fixed and won't happen again." But it's the right thing to do.

Weak leaders, on the other hand, immediately fire back at their critics: they're wrong. Or they don't understand. Or they're stupid. Or they have ulterior motives. Or they're greedy. Whatever. The weak leader goes on the defensive against critics, instead of stopping and asking themselves, "Is this criticism based on something I really do need to look at and change? Am I not presenting my ideas well? Or is this critic being a crank?"

Seeing it close-up (happening with a person I know) seems to bring home much more how petty the weak leader looks when he or she does the knee-jerk reaction. But now I also see it in politics: the politics of reaction is bad politics.

We need more strong leaders. People who have a clear vision and believe that vision is good and right and will help people. And who are brave enough and wise enough, when something's not working, to say, "We need a new plan here."

And we need fewer weak leaders, who seem to be more concerned about their own self-esteem than they are about the welfare of the people they are leading.

The few times I've had power- been a leader of something - I actually kind of came to hate it, because I find that power brings a lot of responsibility and a lot of people to answer to, and not a whole lot of perks. And it is really hard and painful when you didn't do something as well as it could have been done, to get up and say, "Yeah, I screwed up. It won't happen again."

I suspect one of the reasons we wind up with weak leaders is that the people who actually take the responsibility of power seriously tend to get worn out by it.

(Which is maybe why, just maybe, term limits are a good idea...)

I do believe the end of the world is nigh.

Two points of data:

1. I had a student earn an 18 percent on an exam today.

2. Apparently the creature called "Snooki" from "Jersey Shore" has got herself a book deal.

I think it's time for me to head to the bunker.

All Hail the New Feeding Overlords

Heroditus Huxley blogged about this last week. There's a school district considering a ban on chocolate milk. Others are telling students not to bring in cupcakes or cookies on their birthdays.

(Actually, the New York Times wrote about the chocolate milk a while back. Predictably, most of the commenters were aghast that chocolate milk was still even an option. "Give the kids water!" one of them screamed. "We need to prevent childhood obesity AT ALL COSTS!" Apparently, later-in-life osteoporosis is a small price to pay for not having chubby kids. (and yeah, yeah, I know: broccoli and sardines also have calcium. When was the last time you saw a kid voluntarily eat either of those?))

And now, there's the article circulating that Americans Don't Eat Enough Veggies.

The CDC even says:

These findings underscore the need for interventions at national, state, and community levels, across multiple settings (e.g., worksites, community venues, and restaurants) to improve fruit and vegetable access, availability, and affordability, as a means of increasing individual consumption.

That word, "intervention," scares me. Are the Veggie Police going to show up on my campus (it's a workplace) and force-feed me V-8 juice (which I should not drink anyway, as it contains carrots, to which I am allergic) until I've met my minimum daily servings? Are they going to harass people until they capitulate and eat their damn veggies?

I mean - if a guy asks a woman on a date one too many times after she's turned him down, he can be fired for sexual harassment. But it's OK for the gov'ment to come to our workplaces or restaurants and tell us to eat veggies?

Look: what the hell gives anyone in government the right to mandate veggie servings. Or chocolate milk in the schools. Or anything like that.

Yes, granted: apparently poor diet is a problem for some children. But denying all kids a little carton of chocolate milk at the cafeteria is not going to solve the problem of parents who use McDonald's as a pacifier....nor should the government be trying to solve it. People need to take responsibility for themselves.

I remember being in grade school. The "white milk" (as we called it) frequently tasted bad. I don't know if it was the cartons or if it was close to expiring or what. The chocolate milk tasted better. And it was one small, tiny comfort, to have a little carton of chocolate milk in the middle of a day full of math timed-tests and vocabulary drills and being tormented by peers. It would have made life a little smaller and sadder if that had been taken away.

Already kids in school have so much heaped on them: high-stakes testing. Peers who disrupt class, harass them, bully them, and who don't get the butt-smacking they richly deserve. Having to carry clear backpacks. Getting a "referral" if you draw a WWII era scene and just happen to put a gun and a bomb in it.

It must suck to be a kid these days.

Vanished world

TCM was showing von Stroheim's version of "The Merry Widow" this morning. I watched a bit of it. I wish I could have watched it all.

The movie was made in 1925. It's a silent movie, and the silent movies TCM shows, they play pipe-organ music reminiscent of what you'd have heard in the movie palaces of the day.

I find silent movies fascinating. (And it seems that they're always on at the exact time I DON'T have time to sit and watch). They seem like such a vanished world...and yet, they were made less than 100 years ago.

The acting is done differently - it's more exaggerated, by necessity, because most of the story needs to be conveyed by gesture. There are occasional title cards with dialog (this movie seemed to have them more frequently than some silent movies I've seen), but mostly, the actors' actions have to carry the story.

As always in older movies, I also find myself looking intently at the clothes and the backgrounds and the furniture and seeing how things were different. I find that kind of thing really interesting, the whole little window into "how did people live then"

Also, these movies were made before the Hayes code, so they show things movies a few years later couldn't. (The on-screen information for this movie referred to it as a "risque" version, but really, from what I saw, there was nothing risque by modern standards. Or maybe it was the idea that here was a woman who married first out of spite, and then, after being widowed, was happy to flirt and be coy and all that...and the sex was implied. I didn't see enough of the movie to be sure)

It makes me wonder...what would movies be like today if sound had never been developed? What kind of constraints do not having sound place on what stories you can tell and how you can tell them? Or what would have happened if the Hayes code had never been developed?

I don't know much about movies. I enjoy watching some of the old ones on TCM. If I had more time, I'd try to learn more about them.

good well-rounded education WIN.

I admit it, I'm going to be smug about this, a little.

Students are writing on the viability of a "citizen gene bank" for combating crime. One student argued against it, and claimed it violated the 10th Amendment.

So I wrote on his paper: "Actually, the 4th Amendment would be more relevant to your argument."

I will say I'm disappointed by the large number who say, "Of course I'd give my DNA to a national crime-fighting bank; I'm not a criminal!" Um, not entirely the point as I see it but thanks for playing.

Augh, papers.

So, as part of Writing Across The Curriculum or some such mandate, we have our non majors gen bio students write papers.

This is more of a pain than it's worth, save for the fact that maybe 10% of them learn something from me about grammar or structuring an argument (the ones who pay attention to my comments and don't just roll their eyes over how "mean" I am).

Anyway, here's today's crop:

1. fewer than half the papers were stapled. "I couldn't find a stapler." "I don't own a stapler" (Um, hon? They're not expensive. Especially not compared to the iPhone you're diddling with during class time. And yes, I see you back there playing with yourself phone).

2. Several came in printed very faintly. "The printer in the lab next door is running out of toner! YOU NEED TO GET MORE TONER!" Um, yeah. I'll do that right in between all my other duties. You could always, I don't know, call computer support, who are the people whose JOB it is to take care of the printers and who ACCEPT CALLS FROM STUDENTS. And I know you have your phone with you, I saw you playing with it during class.

3. Several people e-mailed them to me, rather than bothering to print them out. So I can print them out and staple them. And then they come to me and ask, in a great tone of concern: Did you get my paper? Yes, I did. Check your e-mail in class rather than texting your friends and you'll see.

4. One person emailed me that she was LIKE, REALLY SICK and couldn't make it to class, could she bring her paper to the next meeting? I emailed her back and said, "I really need to get these graded this afternoon, can you email me a copy?" (I mean, everyone ELSE does). Have not heard back. I assume this means paper is not done.

5. Had another person claim printer failure (in another lab) but that they'd e-mail it to me after class, HONEST. They actually did, so that means they actually had it done, rather than what I assumed.


AND: one person, this is the first (of three) papers she's turned in, totally did not follow the format I told them. There is no literature cited. There are no citations in the paper. And this is the Queen of Butthurt (seriously, she rolled her eyes at me when I told her she couldn't hand the last paper in over a week late, because NO LATE PAPERS is class policy). I can't wait to see how she responds to the low grade and the explanation as to why.

I also had someone - the other day - drop the phone they were texting on (holding it on their lap where it was harder for me to see) on the floor. I just looked at them with the giant stinkeye and they got embarrassed and didn't pick it back up until class ended. I also had someone open a book of essays in class today and start reading so I turned off the lights whenever I showed a table or figure or diagram. And I had Hungover Guy ask if I could make the room cooler. And my two Basketball Girls started having a loud convo, I stopped and stared at them until they shut up (for a while)

As much as I hate the idea of online teaching, you know, it might be easier in some ways? At least all the things that annoy me in class I would not actually see.

And if you get the idea from this post that I REALLY HATE CELL PHONES RIGHT NOW, you would be correct. Or rather, I hate the fact that students now feel entitled to play with their cell phones if the class isn't 100% entertaining and to their liking. Dammit, if I had Lady Gaga's talent for being shocking, I'd be making Lady Gaga style wages.

More on economy

I've been making an extremely concerted effort for - well, for quite a while now - to be extra-frugal. No eating meals out, no random shopping, no mail-ordering stuff.

Part of this is just uncertainty - I have a very bad feeling that something's going to happen so that those of us in the middle class will get screwed on next year's taxes, and I need to have money saved up to pay them. But part of it is I've made the decision not to teach next summer, so I need to be sure to have at least 2 month's worth of expenses (including travel expenses, if I go to meetings) covered.

And you know what? It sucks. I mean, I was frugal before - I carried my little lunch over to school, I didn't get take-out, didn't do the floofy coffee drinks, didn't buy new purses or shoes unless the ones I was using had worn out.

But I wasn't really aware before of how often I ordered books off of Amazon, or mail-ordered craft supplies. And while it's good to work down on what I have built up, I have to admit it's disappointing to come home each day and KNOW there will be nothing fun in the mail for me; that except for the infrequent magazines, there are only bills and junk mail and solicitations from charities.

Many days, I get my mail, sort it as I walk in the door, and immediately dump all of it in the trash. (My friends and family, by and large, are poor correspondents; many of them can't even seem to be arsed to e-mail unless they have a question or a request).

(I've also been trashing the catalogs immediately they come, so I'm not tempted to order anything from them).

I've also gone over again to a more vegetarian-like diet, partly to save money but partly because the one good place that sold meat close to me closed up. And so, I can get the horrible, shot-up-with-phosphate solution crap the local wal-mart sells. (If your wal-mart sells good meat, count yourself lucky). Or I can drive for a better shot at meat, except the last few things I bought at the Kroger's in the next largest town were not that good.

And I suspect I may be bordering on anemia. Or just not getting enough of the right kind of protein. And that adds to my distress.

Teaching a 15-hour (or 14, depending on how you do the accounting) course load doesn't help. I'm tired all the time and always pressed to get stuff done.

So when the news trumpets "Recession is over!" and I'm still feeling misery on various fronts, it makes me roll my eyes and say, "pull the other one, it's got bells on."

I probably should break down at some point and mail order something. Just something small. Just so I can feel like someday I will come home and not have a mailbox full of stuff I don't want.

O RLY?

So now they're telling us the recession is over. Ayup. Has been since last summer.

Tell that to several of my high GPA graduates, who are still job-hunting and living with parents. Tell that to the folks who could afford a house, but who can't get a mortgage loan. Tell that to the two businesses in my town that closed down in the past couple months.

If the recession is over, does that mean that this is really the "new normal"? Where there's insecurity and people are afraid to spend money and most workers are squeezed to the limits of their productivity because businesses won't hire, so some individuals are doing the work of three people? And where the stock market is just blah, so much so that I've revised my "work until 70 or 'til your health fails" plan to "work until 72 or until you drop dead"?

I don't know if the economists see something many Americans don't, or if they've been told to lie, but from where I sit, sure doesn't look like ANYTHING is over yet.

The importance of persistence

I was reminded yet again yesterday of how I grew up relatively "privileged."

I don't mean in the sense of money (though we had enough of that for the necessities and many of the comforts, if not luxuries), but in the sense of what my parents taught me. How much they cared, so that they gave their kids what we needed to succeed in life.

A common kid-complaint is, "This is hard." At first, fractions are "hard." Or long division is. Or algebra. Or trigonometry. Or something in physics.

My parents had slightly different reactions to my (and my brother's) protests that something was "hard."

My mother would remark: "Few things worth doing are easy." And you know, I tended to believe that. Especially coming from her: she grew up in (what I now know was) near-poverty, she was the first in her family to go to college, she worked long hours in the summer to try to earn part of her tuition, she sought out scholarships and what work-study type opportunities existed so she could go through college. She wound up earning a Ph.D. and teaching college (until first I, then my brother, came along, and she decided she would really rather stay home and raise us than continue to work and pay for childcare. And luckily, my father was doing well enough that we could just manage that financially. As I said, we didn't have a lot of material luxuries - at least, compared to the others in our small town (on a global scale we would have been fantastically rich), but we were rich in a lot of important things).

My father responded slightly differently. He'd say to me: "I know it's hard. But you're smart, and you can figure it out." And that always made me feel better. I think part of it was that my distress was being acknowledged - and at the same time, instead of allowing me to give in and give up, my dad told me he knew I could do it, just try harder, work harder.

That was actually kind of the theme when we ran into problems growing up: Try again if you didn't get it the first (or second, or third) time. See if you can find someone who can explain it differently if you don't understand. Try looking at it a different way. Go to the library and see if you can find a book to look it up in (to this day, that's my first recourse when I don't know or don't understand something: find a book that explains it). If you have to, put it aside for a while, rest, and come back to it when you're calmer.

And I realize now how important that was, and how valuable, and how grateful I am to my parents for instilling that in us. I find now when I'm faced with what seems like an intractable problem, I get stubborn: I say to myself, "You're smart. You can figure this out" (echoes of my dad's advice!). And I dig in, and most of the time I solve the problem.

But I often see students who haven't learned this - who have, apparently, been allowed in the past to give up on "hard" stuff. And it's frustrating to teach people with that attitude.

An example, from lab. I teach a non-majors bio lab. We were doing osmosis this week, which, while it's not a super-hard topic, can be confusing if you've never worked with it before. During the lab, one group of guys called me over. "We aren't sure we understand this question" one of them said.

So I used my usual method: I asked them to tell me what they did know and did understand, and then started asking them questions based on that and aimed at getting them to what they didn't know.

Almost at the same moment, the light came up in all of their eyes. "Ohhhhhhh" one guy said. "I get it now." And he started to explain the answer to the question - and another guy picked up where he left off. And I smiled and told them they had it. And they thanked me for the help.

Then, later, one of the women in the class came up to me. "This is hard." she said. "I don't get it." So I tried the same technique- which, when it works, works very well, and I think the students remember better when I "force" them to come up with the answer on their own. She was having none of it though. "This is HARD." she repeated. "I Don't Get It."

I tried to help her as much as I felt OK doing but she just clamped down. Later, I saw her pulling the same thing on the TA in the class - he tried the same method I used and she still clamped down and finally just gave up. And that frustrates me, because everyone else in that class of 24 more or less "got" osmosis after working on it for a while. And she just decided to shut down and decide it was "too hard" or too much work.

As I said, it's frustrating teaching people with that mindset. And I wonder if there's a way of getting them out of it once they've hit 20 or so - I tend to think that if you develop the "I can figure this out!" mindset, it's going to happen as a result of early experience - like what I had with my parents - where, when something was found to be "hard," I was encouraged to keep working at it until I got it, or get extra help (in the form of tutoring or having it explained a different way).

(An aside here: that's the real source of self-esteem, IMHO: taking on a challenge that's somewhat difficult and then realizing along the way, "Hey! I get this!" or "hey! I can do this!" Not being told you're Special and Unique and there's No One Like You)

The other thing that the training I got from my parents did, was that I realized "I could do that thing in the past that I thought was so hard, and once I mastered it, it was easy. So this thing that looks hard now, if I work on it, eventually it will get easier."

But as I said: I'm not sure how to instill this in kids if they're not getting it early on, at home. (And even if primary school teachers try to instill it, if it's not being supported at home, it still may not take).

I might even go so extreme as to say that a big part of America's success over the years comes from people having said, "This is difficult, but I can do it if I keep working and keep trying." People who clamp down when things get hard and refuse to keep trying don't seem to get very far (at least in my limited experience teaching college, and observing other grad students when I was in grad school).

And so it always worries me to see someone who does that "I can't DO THIS" over something, particularly something that other people around them are mastering. It's one thing to try repeatedly and not be able to (I am not much of a singer and I acknowledge that); it's totally another to not even want to try.

"love notes" argh

Without outing myself too much (as to where I live), I live within AM radio hearing-distance of Dallas. So I hear some of the Dallas news from time to time.

Something lately that's appalled me: congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson allegedly (or not-so-allegedly, apparently she's apologized for doing so) funneled money supposed to be for low-income scholarships to family members.


Okay, another bit of "I'm in Politics, so I have Privilege" attitude. I suppose it's not surprising any more.

What gets me, though, is her supporters: instead of accepting that she did wrong, or calling for her to make it right (though apparently she is going to do so now, after having been caught, though it's not clear if the scholarships are going to be rescinded or if she's going to repay out of her own funds, however she may have gotten them), they called for "sending her love notes" to "let her know how much we appreciate her!"

This is just another thing that makes me furious. File it in with the "Oh, so you saved money and bought less house than you could possibly afford? Fine, then you can bail out the people who bought big mansions they couldn't" or the "You're being frugal? Great! Hand over that money so we can give it to politicians who can't be" attitudes.

I think of all the people who work hard, who are honest, and who get mostly trouble for their efforts - all the volunteer workers I know who have to put up with complaints and stuff. Who never get thanked. Who probably would value a "love note" (and yes, I've occasionally sent 'em.)

(And yes, part of this is sour grapes: 99% of the tiny amount of feedback I get is negative. I didn't do something right, I didn't do something to someone's unspoken standards, I didn't do "enough." Or students take issue with how tough I am. Or I'm "mean" because I won't accept papers 3 weeks late. Or whatever. I know, I need to just suck it up, but it gets WEARING to only hear when you've screwed up and having to assume that no feedback = you're doing OK.)

And yet, someone who essentially defrauded some of her own constituents, gets such rabid and unthinking support. I guess this is how people that the rest of the country looks at and goes, "they're so corrupt, how can they possibly still be in office?" manage. Or how cheating businessmen prosper. Or whatever: there are enough people willing to overlook the big moral failings* because they're gettin' the pork they love so much.

(*In a totally different camp would be someone who screwed up and was truly repentant, and did what they could to make it right. That person I'd be willing to forgive and perhaps even give another chance to. But it seems so many people these days - in any field - who are corrupt, they're so busy spinning and making excuses and blaming others that you never even hear a "sorry" come out of their mouths.)

A little better

I had a meeting of one of the ladies' groups I belong to last night.

One of our big focuses (foci?) is raising money and giving scholarships - often to students who are not-as-eligible for other help. We awarded two last night.

One of the women came from Central America originally. She didn't give the whole story, but what I figured out from reading between the lines was that her family was fairly upper-middle-class, until a business partner defrauded her father of a lot of money (and there may have been other problems). With the help of people in the Baptist church (she and her family were members), they got sponsors here, came here, and her parents are trying to rebuild a business. (And I guess they are going through the process to become citizens).

She spoke pretty passionately about her faith, about how she felt that God was leading here here, because now she has the opportunity to do many good things.

She talked about her love of America: "This is the country where your dreams come true" she said "Everyone has the opportunity to do what they want with their lives." She said that with hard work, she'd get what she wanted - to work with a church, and maybe be involved with the Christian music business.

She also remarked: "In America, people will help you. Just ordinary people! If they find out that you need help, they will help you." (She did not seem so keen on the idea of the government helping people, but rather the idea of it being individuals or small groups like faith groups)

She also remarked that one of the things she was trying to do, in her work with her church's youth, was to teach young women - "The Enemy," she said, "The Enemy wants to convince girls that they have to look a certain way and dress a certain way and that is what makes them beautiful...but that's all a distraction; beauty is who you are, it's what is inside you." (I thought this was an interesting observation because physically - I mean, her face and hair and figure and everything - she was a very lovely woman, but she didn't seem to want to "trade" on that in her life. She did say that in her home country, the emphasis on dressing sexy and looking a certain way was even stronger than it was here.)

She also thanked us profusely for the scholarship - it came at a time, she said, when she was sitting in her apartment wondering how she was going to manage in the coming months, but also trusting that God would provide. (And I guess, through us, He did.)

So I felt better after last night. (I suppose it was something I "needed" to hear). It's hard not to get caught up in all the minutiae and to see all the little bad things, but it sure does help to be reminded that once in a while, something you are involved in winds up helping a person and being good for them.

Why isn't this my life?

I'm listening to internet radio while trying to grade. They just played "Somewhere" from West Side Story, which I always think of as "The TIAA-CREF song."

The educators' retirement-funding program used to have a series of ads, showing romanticized views of college campuses, teaching hospitals, and such.

You can see one of those ads here

Those ads - I will admit, in my more susceptible moments, they made me cry a little. Because they were such an idealized, gold-tinged view of the campus. You never see the faculty tearing out their hair because (as just happened to me) a teaching assistant informs them on short notice that they can't be available to help today. Or you don't see the student who plagiarized arguing with the faculty member that they 'didn't know it was wrong.' Or the grinding long hours of grading, where students get things wrong that you thought "everyone" knew.

Why isn't my life more like the TIAA-CREF ads and less like, I don't know, a Mike Judge movie based on the funny-to-the-observers crap that happens in the workplace?

I'm just really worn out from this week. Both my TAs have had to leave unexpectedly for crazy reasons this week, I found a badly plagiarized paper, I had a student claim on an exam that "water is a great source of energy in the diet!" (good God, has the "eat nothing" propaganda penetrated this far?), there are certain individuals "above" me who should have the Imperial March as their theme song.

I'm losing the joy of it, guys. I don't know what to do.

This irritates me

The guy in Florida who wants to burn Korans to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. (I'm sure you've seen it in the news. I'm not linking to any of the stories. In fact, I feel a bit of a hypocrite for giving the man any more attention or publicity).

This bothers me on many levels.

First off, it's the attention-hound impulse at its worst. No one would have known this pastor without his stunt. And now he's all over the news. Sure, it's negative attention, but in today's screwed up society, being notorious is as good as being famous. There are hundreds of people - thousands of people - out there who are doing some real good in this world, who are trying to make things better, and they don't get ANY attention from the news. But let one guy take things too far - and they're all over him. You have to be dysfunctional to get attention these days, I guess.

And I suspect there are a lot of the families of people who died who are upset by this. This guy is grabbing headlines, he's turning the anniversary of a grim and sad day into somewhat of a circus. It's disrespectful to those who died, IMHO.

Second - and probably most important, in my mind - this is a bad advertisement for Christianity. Christians don't gain points by bashing the religions of others, and certainly not by doing something that an adherent of the religion would regard as offensive. (I exempt cases where the "offensive act" is an act that saves another individual from harm; for example, a Christian man getting between a mob bent on stoning an alleged adulteress and the soon-to-be victim would be a brave and good act). It doesn't hurt Christianity that the Koran exists. I have never read any of it but it does not offend me that it exists.

The other thing is, not all Muslims are terrorists. (I'm sorry if you believe they are, but they aren't.) There are many people in this country who follow that faith who are appalled by the terroristic impulses of some of their co-religionists - and who are also appalled by the misogynistic and other negative impulses. (I know. I have had Muslim students who have talked about it.) Just as I don't condone what this pastor is doing - just as I am disgusted by the Westboro "Baptist" idiots - just as I condemn those who would bomb abortion clinics in the name of their faith, there are Muslims who are aghast and disgusted by the thought that someone claiming to be of their faith would use it to kill others.

My faith calls me to love people. (Yes, it also calls me to spread the Good News, but it doesn't tell me to be a jerk about doing so, by burning another religion's texts). I can't see the burning as being anything but an angry and inflammatory act that will make things worse instead of better.

I mean - some have been calling for a slow-down on the mosque-near-Ground-Zero plans, in the name of compassion (for those who were killed) and tolerance (it does look like a thumb in the eye to other faiths, at least from some angles). This is worse, in my opinion, than the mosque plans: all it does is gain notoriety for a preacher. It doesn't advance Christianity (In fact, it's being used as a stereotype. "All Christians are idiot bigots" is the undercurrent on some of the news stories).

IT DOESN'T HELP THINGS.

And finally - yes, it could put our troops in danger. Or Christians (or even "American looking people") abroad in some countries in danger. I realize, yes, the crazy Islamist types don't NEED provocation, that the fact that I'm not walking around in a burqa, only allowed out in public under the protection of a male in my family, is enough to provoke them. But. This is like throwing gasoline on a fire to try to make it calm down.

I don't know. On September 11, I will do what I always have done since 2001 - light some candles, say a prayer for the families of those who died. And also say a prayer that all people who would advance misunderstanding and hatred in the name of religion (or really, any other belief) would realize that their ways are wrong, and repent from that.