Margaret Spelling, U.S. Secretary of Education, spoke in Kansas City on June 5, 2007. Among her ideas about higher education, she wants to measure what college students learn. Her reasoning is basically that higher education costs a lot of money and that the Federal Government spends a lot of money on higher education, therefore higher education should be accountable for the outcomes produced by them thar inputs. OH, please! Let's not have federally mandated testing on the scale that's performed for K-12. Let's not have a higher education parallel to the No Child Left Behind Act. What would we call such an act anyway?
I thought and still think that college professors, whether in elite universities or community colleges and all the institutions in between, do a good job of measuring what students learn what with pop quizzes, mid-terms and finals. We don't need the interference of the federal government in an evaluation of student learning, instructor teaching, seminar leadership, lecture hall PowerPoint presentations and library resources. Other ideas of Margaret's aren't so bad, like the simplification of federal aid applications and its process. But I ask, since she's been in office for several years now, why hasn't she accomplished any of her goals? Sounds like a lot of talk for the sake of a sound bite, rather than a dialogue for educators.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Sam's Song
Senator Sam of Kansas wrote an explanation of his hand-raising experience with evolution in the NY Times, an article that he also sent to the KC Star and probably to many other Kansas newpapers. Since you have probably seen the piece for yourself. I won't try to dissect it and discourse thereon. I merely want to comment on an oxymoron that appears in the summation. The oxymoron is "atheistic theology", a phrase he alluded to in describing evolution gone bad (in his view).
Atheistic means of or pertaining to one who denies the existence of God, or for that matter, any and all gods. Theology means the rational interpretation of religious faith, practice and experience. Religious means of or relating to the divine, i.e. God. Pray tell me, how can one have an "atheistic theology". They are mutually exclusive, ergo, their combination in language is an oxymoron. I feel that people who must ultimately resort to an oxymoron to place a capstone on what they think is an unassailable argument are constructing a veritable house of cards.
Atheistic means of or pertaining to one who denies the existence of God, or for that matter, any and all gods. Theology means the rational interpretation of religious faith, practice and experience. Religious means of or relating to the divine, i.e. God. Pray tell me, how can one have an "atheistic theology". They are mutually exclusive, ergo, their combination in language is an oxymoron. I feel that people who must ultimately resort to an oxymoron to place a capstone on what they think is an unassailable argument are constructing a veritable house of cards.
Monday, June 04, 2007
My Stock is Rising
When I first heard a report on television that the terrorist plot to blow up aviation fuel lines and, perhaps, storage facilities at JFK airport in NYC would have produced destruction worse than the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, I thought about it for maybe two seconds and said to my wife, "Hooey, gasoline pipelines don't blow up and affect a large area. You'll get a bang and fire at the site of the explosion and that's it." How did I know this? Well, common sense, that's how.
This morning an article in the KC Star said pipeline experts disputed federal prosecutors' claims of the vast damage the bombing of JFK fuel facilities would produce. When my wife saw the article, she said, "Look here. You were right about the amount of damage terrorists could do at JFK." Ah, vindication for an opinion. Indeed, in my wife's estimation, my stock is rising.
How could the federal prosecutors thought otherwise? Perhaps, they were hired by that Goodling gal, who favored politics over competence.
This morning an article in the KC Star said pipeline experts disputed federal prosecutors' claims of the vast damage the bombing of JFK fuel facilities would produce. When my wife saw the article, she said, "Look here. You were right about the amount of damage terrorists could do at JFK." Ah, vindication for an opinion. Indeed, in my wife's estimation, my stock is rising.
How could the federal prosecutors thought otherwise? Perhaps, they were hired by that Goodling gal, who favored politics over competence.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Two Dollar Cookie
At a street fair today, I paid two dollars for a cookie. I know that is more than one cookie is worth, but it was a good size cookie and it was sold at a booth manned by supporters of a good cause. Finally, it was a snickerdoodle flavored cookie. But, the cookie was doughy in the middle, that is, it was baked at too low a temperature or for too short a time. Because of its poor preparation, it should not have been sold as a cookie. I couldn't finish it. After a few bites, it was unappealing. I threw it away. I hope the good cause puts my money to good use and that they learn how to bake a cookie until it's done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
