Xark!

Lessons from the affaire de Jarre

Last week, as many if not most of you know, a number of news outlets reported that Irish student Shane Fitzgerald had made up quotations, attributing them to French composer Maurice Jarre upon his death and publishing them on Wikipedia.  While the Wikipedia community removed the false quotations rather quickly, given the lack of grounded citation, several prominent newspapers included at least one of these creative quotations in obituaries of Jarre. 

While I found the story interesting, in the large scheme of things, and given the innocuousness of the attributed quotation, the story should have been but a small blip on my radar.  In my larger scholarly and pedagogical community, however, this was rather monumental news for many people to the degree that Wikipedia has become something of a boogeyman in the rather predictable conversations about the laziness of “today’s generation of students.”  In effect, Wikipedia has become the whipping post that teachers turn to each time they begin another round of cursing the laziness of students. 

Indeed, this is true to such a degree that one often finds syllabi with pseudolegalize, warning students away from utilizing Wikipedia as a source.  Instead, the syllabi reminds the student, research must carefully be tied to properly vetted sources (e.g., peer reviewed journals, or, in the case of contemporary events, national newspapers).  University libraries run seminar after seminar, explaining to first year students that they must learn to differentiate between legitimate and nonlegitimate sources for their research.  In short, the most positive thing one will ever found said of Wikipedia is that it might, on occasion, given other sources, be used for deep background information. 

Hence, the affaire de Jarre was the cause of some level of minihysteria in informal conversation and online discussions amongst teachers who yet again pointed to Wikipedia as the example par excellence of the downfall of standards in student research and writing.  In conversation after conversation, numerous teachers noted that this was surely the sign—if we needed another—that students should never turn to Wikipedia as a legitimate source in their research.  If only “we” could get students to do real research, skipping Wikipedia, we would be on solid grounds.

WASSUP!?! (circa 2008)

Best. Video. Of. The. Week. Via Oliver Willis.

BONUS VIDEO: Hey, trying to figure out that whole 21st century media thing? Can't figure out why the old tricks just don't work anymore? Watch this video. Via Blue Ion.

AND FINALLY: We're huge fans of Michael Wesch. Interested in education? Watch this video and then read this post. Tell 'em what you think while you're there.

Notes to my son

Years ago, I recall being at a friend's house and finding a little book that was filled with advice from a father to his son, upon the latter's departure to college.  While I can't recall the name of the book, it seemed to show up all over the place (I'm sure one of you will remember the name). 

At any rate, I thought the book was a great idea, so I did what might seem counterintuitive.  I put it down and did not read it.  Here was my thought:  someday, I'm going to send my own son off to school, and I'd like to develop some advice of my own to send him, and I would like that to be "fresh" advice.  Since he went off this year, I have sent him one email each day of thoughts/ideas.  I'm sure he finds some of it useful, some of it trite, and some of it ridiculous. 

I'm sharing the first 25 from this list here on XARK:

Hope's Renewal

This semester, with Bruce Barry, I’ve been team teaching a course called “Mass Mediated Politics: Images and Issues.”  The course, a version of which we taught four years ago, attempts to provide a critical look at elections through the eyes of media criticism.  Because we pack the course with a great number of guest lectures—from people who make political ads to pollsters to netroots activists to campaign mangers—I end up learning far a great deal more than I normally do when I teach.  I’m a fairly good media/rhetorical critic, to be sure, but I know very little about the actual practice of a campaign.

Four weeks into the semester, Barry and I have noticed an “emotional” pattern emerging in the class, a pattern we witnessed the last time we taught it as well.  The students—most of whom are political enthusiasts of some degree—began the course feeling very optimistic and bright eyed about electoral politics.  About this point in the semester, however, that feeling has taken something of a downward swing.  Where there was forward looking optimism, there is now disillusionment and pessimism.

As one guest speaker after another has explained the ways in which candidates are shaped and “controlled” (to a degree) by their campaigns, as well as the ways issues are “created” and brought to prominence, the students get more and more disillusioned.  As every seasoned veteran of big time political campaigns tells stories about how campaigns “really” work, the students go from thinking that politics is transparent to finding it misty and illusory.  It is as if their worst fears are being realized.  Politics, as they are coming to see it through the eyes of our speakers, is more a game of tactics and strategies than one of presenting the truth and having the best ideas win. 

Gotta be the Exams . . . .

In a sign that studying for exams is starting to affect the mental capacity of the students, I overheard the following exchange today at Wendy's:

Student: I would like a drink.

Counter: What kind of drink?

Student: A medium.

Counter: A medium what?

Student: A medium sized.

Counter: A medium sized what?

Student: A medium sized drink! Dang, I just told you.

The Downside of Pleasure

I have recently been relearning a lesson about the complicity of pleasures, as well as the difficulties of resisting it.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am a strong supporter of public education.  In brief, my stance is that the more all of us are dedicated to our public school systems, the better we will collectively make them.  Rather than thinking about what is “good for us” as individuals, we owe it to each other to make the collective as good and strong as possible.  In this post, I want to bracket the question of whether my position is right or wrong (if you want to debate that question, you can go to the original post where I’ll be more than happy to engage you).  Instead, I want to focus here on the ways in which my reaction to my son’s recent decision to attend an “elite” private school for his university education points to the seductiveness of prevailing common sense, even when we are dedicated to resisting it.

Stop the Scientizing!

I'm a fan of science. I use it every day. I'm using it right now. And with a smile. But that doesn't mean, in my view, that science should poke its nose into everything. Particularly when the science under consideration is the kind that scientizes something just because it can. I'm talking here about two related phenomena: The first is for researchers to study and then quantify something that was more fun when it was explained via non-science, and the second is for news organizations to report such psuedo-science as, well, news. Not only does the scientization suck the fun out of these events, it also cheapens the idea of scientific journalism.

I bring this up because today, on three major (online) news outlets, I came across headlines for three articles detailing such scientization. These were: an ABCNews.com story on the mortality rates of rock stars, a CNN.com report on a study that "confirms" that men are attracted to attractive women, and a stop-the-presses from MSNBC.com about how scientists have (finally!) located the gene which controls skinny. My issue is not just that these studies seem a little unfocused (look at the sample rates, for instance), or that this is headline news (which it was on two of the three sites), but rather that I can't figure out the motive behind the stories and their newsworthiness in the first place. Why is it worth scientizing things that most people knew anyway? Who benefits from this research and reporting? What am I supposed to do with this information?

School Shopping

My Bonnie and I just took Christopher, a rising Senior, on a tour of colleges in North Carolina.  When we set out, we chose five different colleges or universities in order to give him a taste of different “types” of schools.  The idea was this:  when he says, “I’m interested in LARGE STATE school.  What’s it like?,” we could say, “Do you remember UNC-CH?” or “I’m interested in SMALL HIPPIE school.  What’s it like?,” we could remind him about our visit to Warren Wilson. 

After attending official university tours at UNC-Asheville, Warren Wilson College, Wake Forest University, Davidson University, and UNC-Chapel Hill, we feel a bit jaded. Here’s some of what we learned:

The Mayor's Children, My Vote

As the date for the local mayoral and Metro Council elections approaches here in Nashville, I've been trying, with some difficulty, to differentiate between my two favorite mayoral candidates--David Briley and Karl Dean.  Regardless of how much, and how often, I read about their positions, regardless of how many of my "in the know" friends I ask, I still can't come to a strong position on which one I should support. 

I have, however, found an issue that I am beginning to think might act as a personal wedge or divining rod.  Oddly enough, this is not properly a political issue, not in the traditional sense.  In brief, Karl Dean sends his children to private schools, and tha may well become the litmus test upon which I vote for David Briley in this particular election.

While the educational placement of a candidate's children has not been a deciding issue for me in national elections (e.g., I wouldn't have been concerned about Clinton or Bush's children) or in some other local elections, this is generally because I see more meaningful distinctions between the candidates.   All else being equal, I'm leaning toward making this the deciding issue.  The question that keeps bothering me, however, is whether or not this is significant.  Is this indeed a legitimate basis for making a decision?

The Perils of Common Sense

In local Nashville politics, there’s a controversy over the attempt of the Metro school board to mandate standard school attire for children in all Metro Public Schools.  There are a number of elements to the battle that are interesting—most notably the articulate public statements made by several area students and the vocal reaction of the local blogosphere.  Indeed, those interested can find a wonderful articulation/summary of the arguments in the midst of an original statement by NashvilleIsTalking’s Brittney Gilbert (I strongly encourage you to read this if you have any interest in pubic education, school attire, or local controversies). 

There’s been enough said about the topic itself that I have little to add.  However, there’s a lesson to be drawn from the arguments in general that I think should give us all pause.  It’s a lesson we’ve all learned before, a mistake we’ve promised not to make again:  the pitfalls of common sense.  In short: when one looks at the arguments involved in this case, a great number of people—especially those supporting standard school attire (think school uniforms)—have taken a position based on common sense rather than on research.  In doing so, they ultimately support a position that may have little to do with their ultimate goals.