I wrote a short editorial a year or so ago in the Aberdeen American News suggesting an economic development direction for the city based around Aberdeen's two universities: Northern State University and Presentation College.
This article from the New York Times caught my eye tonight, and reminded me of that idea:
"Rural Colleges Seek New Edge and Urbanize."
I'm not sure I'd call for more rurally located colleges to "urbanize", but I do think many of the ideas set forth in this article could, on some level, take in Aberdeen.
Let me know any thoughts, if you aren't afraid of the "Post Comment" tab.
BC
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Equality: Everyone Reaching Minimum Goals
I recieved this forward recently via e-mail, but got such a kick out of it that I'll post it:
"NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND---THE FOOTBALL VERSION
1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If, after two years, they have not won the championship their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the championship.
2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents.
ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!
3. Talented players will be asked to workout on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like football.
4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game. It will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind."
"NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND---THE FOOTBALL VERSION
1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If, after two years, they have not won the championship their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the championship.
2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents.
ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!
3. Talented players will be asked to workout on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like football.
4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game. It will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind."
Saturday, January 27, 2007
I Want My PS3 - Part 2
Video games outsell DVD and movie box office sales combined. Think movies were a pain in the butt to monitor? The curve indicates strongly that video games are being consumed at a far greater rate by this generation than movies. And this isn't our 16 bit Nintendo games we're talking about. Video games now look more like elaborate, interactive movies, complete with multiple plot lines, complex characters, and of course, dream-like graphics.
The Economist has a quick opinion piece on video games, provocatively titled:
"Breeding Evil"
A few lines from the article:
"Scepticism of new media is a tradition with deep roots, going back at least as far as Socrates' objections to written texts, outlined in Plato's Phaedrus. Socrates worried that relying on written texts, rather than the oral tradition, would “create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.” (He also objected that a written version of a speech was no substitute for the ability to interrogate the speaker, since, when questioned, the text “always gives one unvarying answer”. His objection, in short, was that books were not interactive. Perhaps Socrates would have thought more highly of video games.)"
This is a difficult argument to refute. Those of us who believe movies and video games are inherently inferior to say, books, need to come to grips with the fact that at every point in history when a new medium or form is introduced, it is attacked. Somehow, the medium later migrates into an academic setting as is lauded as high art.
and...
"Novels were once considered too low-brow for university literature courses, but eventually the disapproving professors retired. Waltz music and dancing were condemned in the 19th century; all that twirling was thought to be “intoxicating” and “depraved”, and the music was outlawed in some places. Today it is hard to imagine what the fuss was about. And rock and roll was thought to encourage violence, promiscuity and satanism; but today even grannies buy Coldplay albums."
True. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, today considered far too high-brow for anyone outside of a university setting, was lampooned as pop smut in its day.
and finally...
So are games good, rather than bad, for people? Good ones probably are. Games are widely used as educational tools, not just for pilots, soldiers and surgeons, but also in schools and businesses (see article). Every game has its own interface and controls, so that anyone who has learned to play a handful of games can generally figure out how to operate almost any high-tech device. Games require players to construct hypotheses, solve problems, develop strategies, learn the rules of the in-game world through trial and error. Gamers must also be able to juggle several different tasks, evaluate risks and make quick decisions. One game, set in 1930s Europe, requires the player to prevent the outbreak of the second world war; other games teach everything from algebra to derivatives trading. Playing games is, thus, an ideal form of preparation for the workplace of the 21st century, as some forward-thinking firms are already starting to realise.
The Economist has a quick opinion piece on video games, provocatively titled:
"Breeding Evil"
A few lines from the article:
"Scepticism of new media is a tradition with deep roots, going back at least as far as Socrates' objections to written texts, outlined in Plato's Phaedrus. Socrates worried that relying on written texts, rather than the oral tradition, would “create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves.” (He also objected that a written version of a speech was no substitute for the ability to interrogate the speaker, since, when questioned, the text “always gives one unvarying answer”. His objection, in short, was that books were not interactive. Perhaps Socrates would have thought more highly of video games.)"
This is a difficult argument to refute. Those of us who believe movies and video games are inherently inferior to say, books, need to come to grips with the fact that at every point in history when a new medium or form is introduced, it is attacked. Somehow, the medium later migrates into an academic setting as is lauded as high art.
and...
"Novels were once considered too low-brow for university literature courses, but eventually the disapproving professors retired. Waltz music and dancing were condemned in the 19th century; all that twirling was thought to be “intoxicating” and “depraved”, and the music was outlawed in some places. Today it is hard to imagine what the fuss was about. And rock and roll was thought to encourage violence, promiscuity and satanism; but today even grannies buy Coldplay albums."
True. Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, today considered far too high-brow for anyone outside of a university setting, was lampooned as pop smut in its day.
and finally...
So are games good, rather than bad, for people? Good ones probably are. Games are widely used as educational tools, not just for pilots, soldiers and surgeons, but also in schools and businesses (see article). Every game has its own interface and controls, so that anyone who has learned to play a handful of games can generally figure out how to operate almost any high-tech device. Games require players to construct hypotheses, solve problems, develop strategies, learn the rules of the in-game world through trial and error. Gamers must also be able to juggle several different tasks, evaluate risks and make quick decisions. One game, set in 1930s Europe, requires the player to prevent the outbreak of the second world war; other games teach everything from algebra to derivatives trading. Playing games is, thus, an ideal form of preparation for the workplace of the 21st century, as some forward-thinking firms are already starting to realise.
Oh I don't read, I just look at the pictures - Part 1
For those of us either with young children or expecting them soon, the problem of what to put into the little darlings' minds is a persistent concern.
Should we even have a TV in the house? Maybe TV but no cable? No TV before age 7? No video games...ever? Or maybe just "thinking games" or "strategy games"? Maybe we should have the kids transcribe ancient Latin liturgical texts as their sole form of entertainment and enrichment?
I don't know the answers to these questions yet. I do feel it is essential, especially these days, for parents to be up to speed on what their kids might encounter in the way of technology.
CNET is a great source for just such an overview of all things cutting edge. Today they posted an intriguing little feature article called "A New Crop of Kids: Generation We."
We Gen X'rs (pretty comfy with technology ourselves) have spawned what CNET describes as a generation that is utterly steeped in all things digital. From a strategist at Minneapolis-based Iconoculture, quoted in the article:
"Parents of Gen We's don't see technology as the enemy and don't need to moderate it as much: They see it (as a way to) help them with parenting. They see it as a bonding experience," Robinson said. "As a kind of media Sherpa, they're encouraging kids to not just absorb what media tells you, but to think about how you can change it."
and
"On the Net, geographic boundaries disappear--a teen can watch a scene in New York, and another teen in Nebraska can watch and comment on that same scene," and they can both create something new, she said. "The Net creates that community aspect."
This article is unabashedly optimistic about the future of what others are more cautiously calling "The Image Culture" (more on that later). I'd love to hear comments. Is modern technology (let's broadly define it as TV, Film, Video Games, Mobile Devices and the Internet) a part of your parenting in some way? Do you agree with this article's seemingly rosey conclusion, or is there something more subtle happening to the parent-child relationship, or even to children's brains themselves?
Should we even have a TV in the house? Maybe TV but no cable? No TV before age 7? No video games...ever? Or maybe just "thinking games" or "strategy games"? Maybe we should have the kids transcribe ancient Latin liturgical texts as their sole form of entertainment and enrichment?
I don't know the answers to these questions yet. I do feel it is essential, especially these days, for parents to be up to speed on what their kids might encounter in the way of technology.
CNET is a great source for just such an overview of all things cutting edge. Today they posted an intriguing little feature article called "A New Crop of Kids: Generation We."
We Gen X'rs (pretty comfy with technology ourselves) have spawned what CNET describes as a generation that is utterly steeped in all things digital. From a strategist at Minneapolis-based Iconoculture, quoted in the article:
"Parents of Gen We's don't see technology as the enemy and don't need to moderate it as much: They see it (as a way to) help them with parenting. They see it as a bonding experience," Robinson said. "As a kind of media Sherpa, they're encouraging kids to not just absorb what media tells you, but to think about how you can change it."
and
"On the Net, geographic boundaries disappear--a teen can watch a scene in New York, and another teen in Nebraska can watch and comment on that same scene," and they can both create something new, she said. "The Net creates that community aspect."
This article is unabashedly optimistic about the future of what others are more cautiously calling "The Image Culture" (more on that later). I'd love to hear comments. Is modern technology (let's broadly define it as TV, Film, Video Games, Mobile Devices and the Internet) a part of your parenting in some way? Do you agree with this article's seemingly rosey conclusion, or is there something more subtle happening to the parent-child relationship, or even to children's brains themselves?
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
He's your President too
This is a test. Please select the best answer, and defend your choice in at least one sentence. You have one minute. Ready....Go.
The President's State of the Union speech was:
1) Inspiring and powerful
2) Painfully dull
3) Infuriating, and made my bood boil
4) Shocking, in that Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney didn't spontaneously combust by sitting next to each other.
5) Didn't see it, for x, y, z, reason
BC
The President's State of the Union speech was:
1) Inspiring and powerful
2) Painfully dull
3) Infuriating, and made my bood boil
4) Shocking, in that Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney didn't spontaneously combust by sitting next to each other.
5) Didn't see it, for x, y, z, reason
BC
Monday, January 22, 2007
"The Lives of English Majors"
Thanks to the Rapid City Journal today for pointing out that there are some uses for us (or is that "we"?) English majors in utilitarian America.
One of the best reasons to become an English major is that you are almost guaranteed to learn about people as they exist in the world. Psychology, sociology, business, economics -- none can rival the study of English literature in penetrating to the heart of why people are the way they are. History may be the only other discipline that comes close.
The ability to write quickly and clearly is increasingly rare.*
I heard from my boss just today: "You're good at writing press releases, and fast." (I resisted the urge to correct him: "...writing press releases quickly," I could have said).
Will this earn me a hefty six-figure salary? I'm not counting on it. But it's good to hear someone else affirm that studying and writing about Shakespeare, Conrad, Eliot and Faulkner wasn't a complete waste of time and energy. It certainly didn't feel like it at the time.
*Clear, concise writing is never guaranteed on this blog. Stream of consciousness writing is fair game, as are truncated sentences and misspellings.
One of the best reasons to become an English major is that you are almost guaranteed to learn about people as they exist in the world. Psychology, sociology, business, economics -- none can rival the study of English literature in penetrating to the heart of why people are the way they are. History may be the only other discipline that comes close.
The ability to write quickly and clearly is increasingly rare.*
I heard from my boss just today: "You're good at writing press releases, and fast." (I resisted the urge to correct him: "...writing press releases quickly," I could have said).
Will this earn me a hefty six-figure salary? I'm not counting on it. But it's good to hear someone else affirm that studying and writing about Shakespeare, Conrad, Eliot and Faulkner wasn't a complete waste of time and energy. It certainly didn't feel like it at the time.
*Clear, concise writing is never guaranteed on this blog. Stream of consciousness writing is fair game, as are truncated sentences and misspellings.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Silent nation
This quiz (taken from the Crunchy Conservative link to your right), is supposed to reveal your true American accent.
My results said that I'm a native of the midland which is another way of saying "I don't have an accent." This is supposed to be good for TV and radio.
But the first page also tells me: "the only way to not have an accent is to not speak."
Uh oh.
All of middle America is mute!
(muted?)
What's your US accent?
EC
My results said that I'm a native of the midland which is another way of saying "I don't have an accent." This is supposed to be good for TV and radio.
But the first page also tells me: "the only way to not have an accent is to not speak."
Uh oh.
All of middle America is mute!
(muted?)
What's your US accent?
EC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)