content analysis

Tonight, the honors program and the residence hall organization co-sponsored a debate analysis event, in which clips from last night’s Presidential debate were shown and a faculty member from Communications (also campus debate coach) and I served as “expert” commentators.  We also encouraged discussion with the very smart and energetic group of students.

At the end of the debate, the Comm. Prof. — an old 60s radical — went on a little rant about how upset he is that both candidates support nuclear power, which he claimed is incredibly dangerous.  Though progressive and enthusiastic Obamaniacs to a person, the students were having none of it.  Several of them work in the campus’ nuclear research facility and touted the virtues and safety of new nuclear technology (particularly nuclear waste recycling).  Comm. Prof. held his ground and said that he’s most concerned about the transportation of nuclear waste, but he was clearly outmatched on the science.  To head off an embarrassing situation, I noted that while most of my engineer friends insist that nuclear is the only way, all of my liberals friends (including my own 60s radical parents) are scared to death of it.  I added two other notes:

1. Perhaps most troubling is that energy is not treated as a public resource in this country; it’s part of private enterprise.  As such, the nuclear power companies’ first interest is in profit.  Perhaps, if it were publicly-held, we could emphasize the safety first, making sure we protect people before we make a buck.

2. I simply do not have the knowledge to know who is right.  In the realm of science education,  I am a distinctly average American and do not know enough to evaluate claims about nuclear power (despite reading coverage of it in the Times, The New Yorker, and Mother Jones).  Many times when we talk about reforming K-12 curricula to produce more informed citizens, we emphasize improving social studies.  But I would argue that the citizen of today needs a very different science education.  Forget memorizing the periodic table — that has helped me never.  Americans like me would benefit greatly from an education on nuclear power, climate change research, and other areas of science that are genuinely relevant to our lives.

From this experience, I came away with the social goal of encouraging reform of science curricula and the personal goal of learning enough to have a position on nuclear power.  Any resources you might recommend?

Greetings after a long absence!  I thought of telling you all that I had fallen victim to an experience closely paralleling Tom Hanks’ in Castaway.  But alas, the truth is much more mundane.  Summer was simply too packed for me to post.  I was delightfully somewhat removed from the Internet during the summer months.

I had hatched a glorious return during the first week of classes, but those of you who are employed by liberal arts colleges know too well of the extensive faculty workshops that accompany the beginning of a new year.  For those of you who are less familiar, let me describe a few of the key features of these events:

The Liberal Arts: our faculty workshop is rife with panel discussions and small workgroups that consider pedagogy and the mission of the liberal arts.  While I know well that this would be misery for many, I view it as gift that I work for an institution and have colleagues that eagerly engage in serious conversations about pedagogy.  Or more simply people who believe that discussion of the liberal arts should be a living one.

Curricular Theme: Our current curricular theme involves the increasingly globalized society and encouraging our students to think about the many questions and challenges that reality presents.  To kick-start a conversation on this topic (rather than resorting to cliches), we were treated to two truly excellent speakers in professional positions with global relevance, each of whom spoke for 45 minutes.  We then had another hour to just ask them questions and have a dialogue.  What a pleasure to engage in an interdisciplinary, intellectual conversation!

Pondering: To paraphrase Weber, all the most intellectually productive times I have enjoyed were spent laying in a hammock just thinking.  The informal tradition at my institution is that faculty take nearly a full week just before the beginning of classes to prepare their syllabi — even if they’ve taught the same classes for twenty years.  It’s a wonderful time when we think carefully about the process of education, chat about assignments, and swap readings.

Though I personally cherish the community and intellectualism that this programming encourages, it’s also damn time consuming.  Of course, the semester only gets busier.  But somehow, I’m now re-acclimated to the pace.  So, it’s my sincere hope that I’m back now — like for real.

Just one more thought: Like many, I was saddened to hear of the death of gifted writer, fellow liberal arts educator, and thoughtful human being, David Foster Wallace.  Others, with more expertise or greater poetry of language, have already offered insightful commentary on the man.  But I just wanted to post quote of his that speaks volumes about his personal biography, but also resonates for its honesty about our historical era:

There’s something particularly sad about [living in America around the millennium], something that doesn’t have very much to do with physical circumstances, or the economy, or any of the stuff that gets talked about in the news. It’s more like a stomach-level sadness. I see it in myself and my friends in different ways. It manifests itself as a kind of lostness. Whether it’s unique to our generation I really don’t know.