Those Who Can’t

Bobby Fischer has died. With it commonplace nowadays to talk of multiple intelligences, his was a singular genius, wrapped up in a highly idiosyncratic personality. I have two remote connections to Fischer. I believe he attended the same High School as Barbra Streisand, Erasmus Hall in Brooklyn. One of the science teachers there, Morten Roggen, was later the head of the Biology Department at the high school I attended, Benjamin Cardozo in Queens. I knew Roggen when I was a student, though I never took a course from him. The other connection is through a Chess Master mentioned in the obituary, Shelby Lyman. Lyman came to our high school, I believe in my senior year not too long before Fischer’s first match with Spassky. Lyman was the annotator of that match on Public TV in New York. He came to my High School before achieving this notoriety, to give a simultaneous exhibition --- play 20 or 30 games all at once. I was the opponent in one of those. I hung around for a while but as others lost and I needed to make moves more quickly, the pressure mounted. Ultimately, he creamed me.

With loose ties like this, we are perhaps five or six connections from everyone else on the planet, or so it seems. The Internet makes it seem all that much closer. I hadn’t thought about Roggen in quite a long time – there was nothing to occasion the thought. But one quick Google search and there he is, mentioned in a New York Times piece on the Westinghouse Science competition, still at Cardozo, at least at the time this piece was written 10 years ago. Ironically, it was my graduating class that produced the overall winner of the Westinghouse prize, Nina Tabachnik, the first girl to do so. Nina was fourth in my graduating class. I was fifth. (The school had so many students it was run on split session. That graduating class had in excess of 1150 students.) Loose connections are begat from others that are a little tighter.

* * * * *

A different New York Times piece from a few days back set me off for some reason. As it turns out I wasn’t the only one upset by this piece. At core is the issue of whether theorizing gets too far out in front of any potential data to confirm or refute the theoretical arguments. When I was a grad student in the late1970s, theory was definitely King in the Economics profession. (This comical depiction of the Econ clan, written by a serious economist, makes the point forcefully.) At a New Year’s Eve party I attended, with some economists present, I spent some time talking to a rather well known econometrician who argued that economic theory is dead. Real economics deals with data.

I have gone through my own personal metamorphosis in thinking about economic theory. I was trained as a theorist. That training prized rigor in the analysis and generality of the results and the regimen encouraged the student to think very hard about a problem, often for quite a long period of time. But at about the time I became aware of learning technology I started to become disillusioned with economic theory, in part because the results were so disappointing. Theoretical economics has very little predicative power about what we can observe. General equilibrium theory admits almost anything as an excess demand correspondence; the restrictions are extremely weak. Game theory is no better. The Folk Theorem of repeated games says that any individually rational outcome can obtain, so much for economic determinism. And on the normative front, things don’t fare better. Arrow’s theorem, a gigantic result particularly at the time it emerged, tells us there is no foolproof way to make a social choice. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem gives the strategic analog – there is no dominant strategy mechanism that can bring about efficient public good allocation. The dismal science is, unfortunately, just that.

* * * * *

Here’s a bit on information literacy trivia before I get into my subject. The full quip from which I stole the title of this post reads as follows.

Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.

I was pretty sure it was from Eugene O’Neill, but I did some quick Google searches on quotes from O’Neill and found nothing. I then found the line on this page, where it is attributed to H.L Mencken. That didn’t seem right to me. I went to a meeting and came back still disturbed by this seeming incongruity so I went to my hard copy of Bartlett’s, fifteenth edition copyright 1980. I looked up O’Neill and Mencken and didn’t find the line under either of them. So I went back to Google and searched some more. I ultimately found another source, which attributes the line to George Bernard Shaw. The first time I saw that, when I read G.B. Shaw I associated Shaw with O’Neill. Coming back a second time I could see my error – Shaw and O’Neill both were playwrights who lived around the same time and I temporally treated them as one person, but I nonetheless understood Mencken wasn’t the right guy because he wasn’t a playwright. I attribute the mistake to the aging process, which ultimately will victimize us all; surely I’m already partway down that path. Aging masks certain distinctions but keeps others. I went back to my hard copy of Bartlett’s and looked up Shaw. I found the line, but written as follows.

“He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches”. The attribution is Man and Superman, 1903.

I trust Bartlett’s in hard copy. That must be the correct cite. Now I’m wondering why I learned the line differently. Many other people seem to have learned it that way too, as I first wrote it, although that’s not the quote. It’s interesting what subjects can keep you fascinated on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.

The line itself conveys that the doers among us move toward the place of their work, but the rest of us, full of incapacity, move away from our personal defeats; yet if you run from something you must find another haven, and if we’re all in the same boat perhaps we find the same answers as to the haven to choose. Is Higher Ed that shelter for me? And what about for many others like me? Those questions have been lingering in the background all week, while I’ve been going about my work.

In the middle of my sophomore year in college, I transferred from MIT to Cornell. That literally was running away for me, but I note it here not for that but rather because it marked a change of mindset for me in thinking about college. Much of that mindset change was reflected in the music I listened to. My memory, as we’ve already seen, is not perfect. So I may inadvertently omit some key songs from this list. But I do recall at MIT listening repeatedly to Whammer Jammer from the J.Geils Band, Dream On by Aerosmith, Midnight Rider – the Joe Cocker version, and You’re So Vain by Carly Simon. These were all part of the repertoire, the Boston rock music of the time, or so it seemed from our dorm room near the Charles River. Nowadays, you might hear the Carly Simon song on Classic Rock radio, but I don’t think I’ve heard the other tunes for upwards of 25 years.

After a relatively harsh first semester at Cornell, where I hadn’t fully adjusted to the change and lived in an all male dorm, I found my niche as a junior at 509 Wyckoff Road. Though we did a lot of activities as a larger group, I quickly became best friends with a particular housemate who was enrolled in a one year Master program in Engineering and who happened to be a Deadhead. (A year later he was pursuing a doctorate --- at Berkeley, with part of the reason for going there to be close to Jerry Garcia.) Student that I was, I took Grateful Dead 101. There was the music, certainly. The centerpiece was the Skull and Roses album. There were other Grateful Dead albums, and the Allman Brothers, the Moody Blues, and a little bit of Bob Dylan. Yet it wasn’t just music. There were texts too. There was Jack Kerouac. And the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. These called out. (That Neal Cassady was a featured character in both really helped to make the connection.) If you can do, you’re on the road. This was the key challenge I felt in my late teens and early twenties. Can you live in the real world and deal with real people? Are you up to it? Turns out, I really wasn’t.

Consider the alternatives for what would be next after graduation – Peace Corps (in retrospect I should have considered that more seriously, but at the time I didn’t), a job wearing a suit (and for me that probably would be as an actuary in training), Law School (I took the LSAT, in part because my dad was a Lawyer, but I didn’t do well on that test), grad school in Math (but I didn’t think I had the passion for that); unsurprisingly, none of those were attractors for me. Economics won because it had a novel angle – math but not pure math, some social science even if that was done in an abstract manner, and with a free ride (fellowship) so no reason to feel it was a commitment, at least not at first. Grad school was a tweener – not a job, not medical school and a path to a guaranteed high income, but not bumming around either. I kind of knew my own answer to Dylan’s question in Like a Rolling Stone without ever having been out on my own.

Perhaps the grad school choice is different for students who go in the same field that they majored in as an undergrad. Then there is continuity. Perhaps that leads to a greater sense of moving toward a goal. For me, knowing I couldn't hack bumming around and that my parents wouldn’t help me financially if I did that, grad school was the preferred alternative to getting a job. That was the those-who-can’t aspect. At first, it wasn’t an embrace of academia or teaching. It’s hard to embrace something you know so little about. Then, once that choice was behind me, I made what is referred to in economics jargon as a “rolling plan.” I’d do it seriously one quarter and then reconsider my options. It turn out that this approach is the equivalent at a personal level to a non-denial denial. I didn’t ask myself explicitly is this what I really want to do with my life and does it afford me avenues of self-expression and self-realization that answer the meaning of life question. Posing those questions, the key thing I did at Wyckoff Road, didn’t happen once I got to grad school. But in the process of doing the economics seriously, I got hooked/locked-in. I came to like the intellectual rigor of the economics and enjoyed living a life that was mostly in my own head, though there was much else of my program that I disliked and I felt my own cohort was anti-intellectual, especially compared to my time at Cornell.

The University is a cloister. The work there is necessarily divorced in many ways from what goes on in the rest of the world. In college towns like Champaign-Urbana, that is doubly so. Urban campuses may be similar to mine in how they deal with the work, but there the faculty and the students still are residents of the city and must deal with the aspects of life implied by that. So, it turns out I moved to the cloister in stages and ironically some parts of my grad student life brought me closer to Kerouac than I’ve been before or since. I lived four miles from Northwestern, in Rogers Park, in the far northeast of Chicago. My neighborhood had mostly folks who had nothing to do with Northwestern, only a smattering of students and definitely no faculty. Across Sheridan Road (my address was 7707 Sheridan Rd.) there was a sub-community dubbed “The Jungle.” The residents were mostly Black and when you walked the streets there you felt a need to have your wits about you. I did most of my grocery shopping, at least that first year, at the Dominick’s on Howard Street. Odd that I remember this, but it didn’t have one of those auto open doors and I remember developing a habit of holding open the door for the next person, regardless of who they were. These non-university folks were real people and they deserved to be treated decently. I’m not sure why but for the most part I didn’t feel fear for my physical well being (growing up in New York I felt that fairly often) and holding the door for people was my tiny way of saying I’m OK – you’re OK. Sometimes we’d share a sentence or two and then that would be it. I can’t say I led an organic life as a city dweller. But there was a substantial part of me that was not yet ensconced in school.

There is a fine line between running away from failure and opting out of a situation because there are discomforts that anyone with sense would avoid. I chose to come down here because of the university, not because I wanted to live in a small town. But the small town aspect of the place creates its own hooks, the same way that studying economics seriously does. For those of us who grew up in a city but have worked in a college town environment most of our adult lives, perhaps we are less troubled from asking ourselves which side of that line we are on; maybe we’re no longer troubled by it at all. For those who grew up in a small town, found the university as a student and then remained after graduating, the path may have been different but the sense of cloister may be even greater. Further, the creature comforts that we’ve increasingly become accustomed to, comforts that are a consequence of a comparatively high family income, numbs us even more. Let’s face it, because academics are remunerated in accord with their advanced degrees and because income inequality in the society as a whole has risen dramatically since I was in graduate school thirty years ago, we academics who were firmly part of the middle class now find ourselves part of the income elite, if only in the lower tail of that group. That income disparity creates its own sense of cloister. And ultimately it makes the issue of which side of the line one is on a distinction without meaning.

* * * * *

Of course, there is a different kind of those-who-can’t issue inside of academe. It is manifest most clearly in the increasing reliance of adjuncts on campus – as a way to hold down the costs of instruction. And, further, it is manifest in how salary increases and promotions are decided. Many others have written about the issue. So here I want to take a look at it from a different angle, from the culture within academe.

There is a hermitic aspect to being an academic. Writing a manuscript, cleaning a data set, working through a model – all of these have a strong solitary aspect to them, even when done in collaboration with others. But for a regular faculty member there is an offsetting social activity that advances their own learning more generally. It is the workshop or seminar series, a place to see papers presented and learn about interesting ideas that others have generated, and on occasion a place to showcase one’s own work. Any department that has a good and vigorous intellectual life has an active seminar series. It is the perfect counterpoint to the more reclusive work that faculty do otherwise.

Many adjuncts I know do no research at all. Quite a few of those, not inclined to a hermitic existence by their disposition, are nevertheless fairly isolated from peers. They may be extremely busy, spending a lot of time with students, but for many of them there is no counterpart to the workshop where they can learn from their peers on a regular basis. So their isolation is more complete than with regular faculty. And that more than anything else serves to re-emphasize their those-that-can’t status and in that respect is more important than their precarious position contractually, though obviously that matters too. The thought has occurred to me more than once that if I were 25 years younger and relatively new to college teaching, I’d probably be an adjunct. I wonder how I’d survive in that circumstance.

There are community building aspects regarding teaching and learning on campus. I’m part of one of those, a seminar on Undergraduates Engaged in Inquiry. Some adjuncts participate, but not as vigorously as the faculty who are regulars in the group. And many don’t participate at all. There are a handful of adjuncts on campus who have a strong reputation as excellent teachers and who do spend a lot of their time learning about or inventing for themselves new approaches to their teaching. They innovate and get reward from that, both in terms of recognition and occasionally financially too. But these people are the exceptions.

Somehow, there needs to be an intellectual community that attracts adjuncts more broadly, that encourages their professional development as teachers, and in the process makes them feel more a part of the place --- doers rather than stopgaps. I don’t know how that can get done --- perhaps a small grant program for adjuncts that combines an initial faculty development activity with an ongoing workshop, though I’m really not sure how this should look. Learning technologists should be part of it, but probably in a supporting rather than a lead role. Who should take the lead? Again, I’m not sure. It would be best if it were self-sustained by the adjuncts themselves but, clearly, there is a chicken and egg problem with that. I do think it time that the issue receive a broader vetting than I’m giving it here. I would participate in further discussions on the topic if others were interested.

* * * * *

There’s yet one other way where those-who-can’t manifests on campus and to discuss that let me consider another one of those road-not-taken questions. Suppose I had not found learning technology administration and had instead remained as a regular faculty member with a modest research agenda, producing my one or two papers a year and getting them into reasonable journals if not the top-of-the-profession outlets. Would I just keep chugging along or would I have felt a need to change my research portfolio, perhaps working with empirical types rather than straight theory, perhaps working with social scientists who are not economists, to do some interdisciplinary work.

In asking this question I’m making note of the following. Economics as a major is as popular as ever, but the graduate program here and I believe at many other places as well is much smaller than it was when I came here in 1980. So from a teaching load point of view, the average load entails more undergraduate instruction. People who do pure theory research, like I did, find themselves in a position where their research is irrelevant for their teaching. And it is not a stretch to ask whether the research is relevant for anything else. The reinvention of the research agenda would, no doubt, be done in a search for relevance. The alternative of chugging along, at least implicitly, is an argument that indeed the research is relevant for other things.

But that sort of thing can be measured, at least indirectly. The most obvious way of doing this would be by looking at citations. If one can trace out a chain of citations that go from the pure theory research to other work, either widely recognized theory, or more applied work that has clear value in itself, that chain provides a justification for the work. But what if that chain is a closed loop, with the theory papers each citing other theory papers but not going off to something else that has established value? What then? Quite possibly the theorists themselves defend their turf, but the rest of the world comes to view them as a bunch of eccentrics only.

I don’t want to characterize all of economic theory this way, but I believe there is a problem here and the problem goes outside the economics discipline. Further, the rules of faculty governance and the role of tenure exacerbate this problem. What happens when those who can’t are at the top of the food chain? It’s not a pretty picture.

Polls Apart

Blogger has some new sidebar tools. One is for polling. Try mine (not that the question is original but it would still be cute to know where people stand on it) . I don't know how useful polling is for teaching and learning. In many contexts I can think of, I don't want students to be anonymous. Perhaps there is some use nonetheless.

Classes start here next week so tracking presidential politics will drop of my personal radar. But it is interesting to note that in New Hampshire the College Towns favored Obama while the bigger cities favored Clinton. What inferences can one make from that?

If you look for the most hated man on Wall Street these days, it is probably Ben Bernanke. The street wants the Fed to lower interest rates more than he is so inclined. Bernanke is seeking a middle way, one that keeps the economy growing with low inflation, and surprisingly enough, one where the sub prime market works, but not with loans equal to 100% of purchase price nor with adjustable rate mortgages. I watched this presentation from Wednesday. (The link should work for a couple of weeks). I thought it was really excellent. What a well reasoned and data driven response to Wall Street. I wish we could talk this cogently with Learning Technology.

Are Voters Yoyos?

Sticking with the theme about crowds and getting information about them, the press reported yesterday’s results in New Hampshire as a surprise on the Democratic side --- with Hillary Clinton making a comeback over Barack Obama. A poll taken after the Iowa Caucuses had Obama with a 9 point lead. But Clinton actually won. So this is news. Of course, if that poll were wrong, if the Iowa results were not a good predictor of what would happen in New Hampshire because the demographics are different, then there may not be much news here. That’s what I’m trying to think through in this post.

First, let’s look at a prediction that did pan out. The Governor of New Hampshire said there’d be big turnout, upward of a half millions votes. CNN reports the results with 96% of the precincts reporting. My count from that is a little more than 505,000 and if districts were uniform in the number of votes there are about 20,000 yet to be reported. Very good Governor, you got it right.

Next, let’s look at a really dippy prediction made by CNN on TV. During the 9 to 10 PM hour in the Midwest, Clinton had a 2% to 4% lead, a pattern, that had been holding up most of the evening, but CNN refused to make a prediction because two college towns, Durham (University of New Hampshire) and Hanover (Dartmouth) had yet to report and it seemed that Obama was quite popular on College Campuses. (CNN ultimately declared Clinton the winner soon after the AP had done so.) Indeed, those towns went heavily to Obama, but the volume wasn’t high enough to make a big difference overall. Indeed, the Durham volume seems particularly low given that they have 14,000 students. But there is a simple enough explanation for it. They are on break now and don’t resume till after Martin Luther King Day. So most of the students aren’t on campus (and even if they were they very well might be registered in their home district rather than in Durham). Duh. (Dartmouth does have a Winter term so many of the students are there, but they have many out of state students and the total student population is much smaller than at UNH.)

If you compare the Entrance Poll from Iowa results to the Exit Poll from New Hampshire results and focus on the gender items that are on the top, you’ll notice first that the split overall between male and female is near the same across the states, that the Obama numbers are also remarkably the same across the states, that Clinton’s increased success in New Hampshire came somewhat at the consequence of Edwards and Richardson, but she also seems to have picked up the votes that had gone to Biden or Dodd in Iowa.

There is no compelling reason to assume that if Biden and Dodd hadn’t dropped out and if the New Hamshire primary had been on the same date as the Iowa Caucuses that the splits in the results would have been the same across the two states – the results on the Republican side indicate that clearly – but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it as I implicitly did in the previous paragraph. Then, in accounting for the fact the Biden and Dodd did drop out of the race, a pollster to get accuracy in New Hampshire would have to over sample former Biden and Dodd supporters to find out who they’d turn to next. (It makes sense to me that these people were undecided till the last minute.) Similarly they should over sample both Kucinich and Richardson supporters, perhaps not to the same degree but to some extent, because their supporters might come to realize that a vote for their previously preferred candidate would have little to no effect on the ultimate outcome. (That Biden and Dodd did gather some votes in New Hampshire after they had dropped out of the race indicates that the trickle of supporters they kept were responding to some other prerogative than to affect selection of the Democratic candidate.) One can explain almost half of those who reported they were undecided day of based on this sort of candidate switching. This idea got essentially no coverage in any of the news and analysis.

The other type of switching, this was heavily reported, occurred among independents who opted to change the party they’d vote for. I haven’t seen the breakdown of these folks ex post. The wisdom before the fact was that if these folks opted to vote Democratic that favored Obama. And on this point I can’t help but feel that the poll suggesting Obama had a 9% lead in New Hampshire might have driven some of these people to vote Republican – their vote would matter more there and they didn’t want to see Huckabee or Romney win. There is not much to be done about prior polling affecting actual voting behavior. It’s going to happen. But if the prior polling is itself inaccurate for the reasons I’ve suggested above, that is disturbing --- it implies the reporting of the polls creates a regression toward the mean consequence in and of itself.

Now let me turn to the idea that Obama and Edwards supporters – mostly women – switched to Clinton over the last couple of days. This is the “comeback” that is being reported today. The comeback is attributed primarily to how Clinton performed in the debate Saturday night, particularly at the point where her “likeability” was brought up and in her getting teary eyed on Monday. (If we actually knew the second place choices of the Biden et. al. supporters, that those changed to Clinton yesterday would also be part of the comeback.) Another possible source of the comeback was an op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem that makes for a compelling read (whether you agree with her or not) on why it’s harder to be a woman presidential candidate than to be a black presidential candidate and that difference plays out the most in how emotional/controlled the candidate appears – our gender biases run that deep. We voters, who want to have it both ways and seek out the best attributes each gender has to offer in one package, might then change our view of the candidates when one aspect of the persona, previously veiled, becomes more overt. This is the source of the comeback, or so it seems. It’s what I termed the yoyo, viewed from the voters’ perspective rather than the candidate’s.

This morning, Maureen Dowd took on Hillary, on the grounds that both the Saturday night and Monday expressions were completely controlled and planned beforehand in the same manner that Bill used to bite his lip while delivering an address, and Gloria, on the grounds that can’t we just evaluate the candidates on where they stand on the issues, but in the process gave tacit endorsement to the comeback hypothesis. Dowd is a good writer and it’s interesting to see her indictments of Democrats rather than Republicans. But she’s no statistician. (I’m not either, but I’m probably a better social scientist than she is.)

And there is a problem with the comeback hypothesis. It simply might not be true. It might simply be that Clinton actually had more support in New Hampshire ahead of time than she had in Iowa and vice versa for Edwards. That and the rest of what I’ve got above could explain the entire outcome, in which case the comeback is a post hoc rationalization only. (If you haven’t read Stephen Jay Gould on the Streak of Streaks, you should. We humans are into post hoc rationalizations.)

What’s the problem maintaining the comeback hypothesis if it is not true? First, the polling is likely to continue to be misleading, at least until it settles down to a two candidate race. Second, the candidates themselves won’t understand how to wage their campaigns most effectively. My prediction (economists are notorious for believing that future economic phenomena can’t be predicted beyond the trends that are already known at present) is that the Richardson support will ebb and then the Edwards support will likewise wane. To win Clinton and Obama will need to woo the supporters of these other candidates without alienating their current base. How should that be done? Third, it’s also a disservice to the voters. There is no question now that the vast majority of the electorate is dissatisfied with the Bush administration. Voters are entitled to make their judgments on the candidates based on a reasonable guess as to how they’d actually serve if they were elected president. For the election in 2000, one can make a good case that the campaign did not help voters understand much if at all what the Bush presidency would be like. An embrace of the comeback hypothesis, if it is wrong, encourages voters to repeat the same mistake for the election in 2008.

Paul Krugman, whom I’ve taken on from time to time, encourages voters to look at politicians on the issues and to ignore the rest. On this I have to agree with him. It’s the best way to judge. There may not be a huge difference between the leading Democratic candidates when considered this way and this way only. So it might be hard to select the most preferred. And procrastination is another thing that we humans are into. But once a choice has been made in our minds, I for one don’t believe we continue to bounce around among the alternatives. And I certainly don’t want to give the candidates more fodder to take W.C. Fields as their role model. We’ve been down that road too often.

Addendum to the Lack of Wisdom of Crowds

This news item from the CNN site, gives the appearance that I was a ditz in what I wrote yesterday. The story says that about 20% of those voting in New Hampshire today made up their minds about whom to vote for day of (or they were seriously willing to reconsider their choice). I said in my previous post that you could tell what happened in the Iowa Caucus well in advance of that event.

I may very well be a ditz in a host of other matters but on this one, I don't think so. There is a problem in how these pollsters frame their questions and so they throw out a lot of information that would be useful in making predictions. Here's the scoop.

I pretty much know who I'm going to vote for on February 5th (Super Tuesday) but certainly leave open room to learn new things about the the candidates between now and then and depending on what I learn, I could change my mind. The likelihood of that happening is low, in my view, but it is possible. Say I'm 90% confident of choosing my currently preferred candidate, leaving a 10% chance that I might change my mind. Does that make me an undecided? If quite a bit of the population is like that and further if they have the same candidate who they a likely to vote for, then that candidate should be the favorite going in. But the way we measure things, we wouldn't know.

There is a further confirmation of this way of thinking about what is happening. Ask yourself the following, other things equal. Which person is more likely to vote, the one who if he did vote would likely choose one particular candidate or the other who if he were to vote is presently completely undecided - each candidate is equally likely to be selected? The news is talking about record turnouts (some of which, to be sure, is the weather but is probably not all of it). In my view that's because these voter know who they wanted to vote for and they've known that for a while.

The (lack of) wisdom of crowds

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
- Bertrand Russell

For those of you unfamiliar with the Iowa Electronic Markets, they are worth a look. The idea behind them is that markets aggregate differences in information and opinion in an efficient way and hence provide a better sense of what is likely to happen than typical polling results. The current economist most associated with this idea is Charlie Plott. (In that linked paper, the authors write that the idea goes back at least to Hayek.) But for the markets aimed at predicting which presidential candidates will be selected in the Democratic Convention, either there was some huge news just before the Iowa Caucuses that caused the prices of the various candidates to change dramatically or, my preferred interpretation, the market just got it wrong before the Iowa Caucuses. Apart from the actual returns and the exit survey results of that day, there really wasn’t any big news leading up to the Caucuses. But there was a certain interpretation of the information that was readily available. That interpretation prevailed. But it was quite wrong. Let’s take a look.

The assets that are traded on this market pay off $1 if the particular candidate gets selected by the party to run for president. It pays nothing otherwise. There are four assets, one each for Hilary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, and one for the rest of the field. Here are the results for December. Focus on the column called LastPrice. Evidently, Clinton was the clear favorite then. Her price never falls below $.55 and for the much of the time it is priced about $.60. Obama’s price never reaches $.40 and for much of the time it is below $.30. These results indicate that Clinton was the clear favorite in December, at least according to the markets.

Consider how this information contrasts with these CNN Poll results reported on January 1, where the conclusion is it’s a dead heat between Clinton and Obama. Now take a look at the IEM results for January. On New Year’s Day, things were just like December. The following day Obama’s price started to rise and Clinton’s started to fall, with a fairly dramatic change on the 3^rd and Obama overtaking Clinton on the 5^th (the day of the Caucuses). By the 6^th, Obama became the clear favorite, according to the markets.

The question is – did many people just make up their mind in Iowa at the last moment, with the great bulk of these voters going for Obama? That would be one possible explanation. Or did they already have their minds made up in December, but the IEM certainly and the polls to a lesser degree, didn’t measure this well at all. That’s my interpretation. The high turnout suggests to me that people are upset with the status quo and want to do something about it. And I believe that’s been going on for quite a while. Sure, people are dismayed about the price of oil and it reached $100/barrel only after New Year’s, as did the news that unemployment spiked last month. But these things seem to me more of a trend, not something fundamentally new.

There is something new going on. But right through December we’ve been told “same old, same old.” So there really wasn’t any way for most of us to know how the bulk of the voters felt. This is a kind of tyranny of the status quo.

In some of his remarks during the Saturday debate, Obama talked about listening to the voters and letting their voice speak. If he does ultimately win the Presidency and his positions become the status quo how, exactly, will he enable the voter’s voice and what will he do to hear it? That’s a question without an easy answer.

Pace

I’m back at work today after an extended holiday. Vacations are for rejuvenation and mine did a good deal of that for me. There was probably less than the usual bit of sports viewing – a trip to St. Louis for the Bragging Rights (not so) Classic where each year the Illini Men’s Basketball team plays Mizzou (both teams played hard but not very well and we eked out a victory), the painful to watch Rose Bowl where USC pummeled us and I didn’t last till the end of the first half, and in between a compelling if meaningless game between the Giants and Patriots where I had predicted the upset that almost was and that did keep me in my seat till the conclusion. Other than that I mostly avoided sports viewing and though I did idle away a fair amount of time I spent a good chunk of each day in more sustaining diversions.

It’s easier for me to make resolutions before a holiday than for the new year; there can be more intention on how to spend leisure time while the nagging demands of work oftentimes present themselves as immediacies and hence at odds with free will. I wanted to spend some substantial time each day reading good fiction. The act of reading is itself restorative, especially insofar as one can become immersed in the story. I noticed that I’m less able to achieve that now, a complete loss of self, than I was in College when each summer I had made a like commitment to read some great work. Habits formed from reading at a computer, where one interrupts quite regularly to do a Google search to follow a tangent thought, check on an email whose alert has plopped onto the screen, or make some notation of an idea that came to mind all mean that reading has become much more of a back and forth thing where the reading competes for attention with other demands. Now, even when sitting away from the computer in a comfortable chair and with a very good book, it takes substantial discipline to stick with the reading and not jump to do something else. Eventually, fascination with the narrative takes over. I’m very glad that is still possible. But it used to be so much easier. I had asked my wife to get me a Kindle for a Christmas present. (It is back ordered.) Now I’m beginning to wonder whether an eBook can produce the same effect.

The novel I chose was the Forty Days of Musa Dagh by Franz Werfel. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my mom had wanted me to read this when I was in my late teens, but I never did, so this was the delayed fulfilling of that request. Sometimes, it is good to live under the imposition of such obligations. Though it was written more than seventy years ago and the subject matter is horrifying (the Armenian genocide in Turkey in 1915) I thought the book a masterpiece. This William Saroyan quote about the book is particularly apt.

"In number of words and pages this is a long novel, but in swiftness of movement it is all too short. Reading it, one hopes it might never end, and actually it does not end. Its implications cling to the heart and mind of the reader as some long forgotten and suddenly remembered experience in the story of all who once lived on the earth and somehow live yet. The novel is written with the ease which gives writing and life inevitability. Here, at last, is a contemporary novel full of the breath, the flesh and blood and bone and spirit, of life."

And while the book was quite popular at the time of publication, it seems not to have found a place in the readings lists of great fiction that are de rigueur for serious young adults. (I did a Google search on *great books of the 20^th century*. While there was substantial variation from one list to another, Werfel’s book didn’t appear on any of them.) Yet there is much to learn from it, and though it is about the Armenians in Turkey in 1915, there are very strong parallels to the current situation in Iraq; how we think of Middle East more broadly; indeed on the issues of tribal, racial, and religious conflict wherever they may manifest. There is also much about the nobility of human character, as captured in the behavior of the protagonist Gabriel Bragadian, as well as on the fanciful and quite possibly very damaging behavior that emerges from normal human reactions when confronted with tensions and pressures, as captured in the behavior of all other characters in the story, Bragadian himself as well. Though the book is a translation and, of course, there must be something lost in the process, it is also an exemplar on how to tell a story well. There is comparatively little dialog. Instead, most of it is narrative qua analysis done in the third person. It is a style I could aspire to in my own writing, giving me some hope that I could do fiction.

The Saroyan quote notwithstanding (and note it was written soon after the book was published, 1934 or 1935, where the sense of timing was different than today, not that there wasn’t quick and snappy dialog such as in the Thin Man, but themes were fleshed out more fully before moving on to the next subject) I would characterize the pace in the Forty Days of Musa Dagh as leisurely. The sense of time flows slowly. The motivation of the character stays consistent based on a long prior pattern of prior circumstance. Themes and characters are revisited creating a cascade of intensity and interest. And while those characters despair, the reader luxuriates in their story, almost certainly because of this engrossing yet slow flow. It is an effect I’d like to strive for in my own writing.

I want to switch gears and talk about my other resolution for over the holiday – to do about an hour of exercise each day, come hell or high water. This time of year, especially because the weather is nasty outside, I’ve become a stationary bike guy. It’s good for me and low impact on the joints. But it is mind numbingly dull. So I give myself *candy* in the form of a TV program I can watch and distract me from the tedium. The West Wing worked wonders in this regard but I became saturated with that so I looked for some other series on amazon.com that might do the trick. Unfortunately, it appears that LA Law is not available in DVD. I was an addict for that show and it’s been such a long time ago now that watching it again would seem like a fresh experience. I had to try something else. The Sopranos are in rerun now, but for some reason that show didn’t appeal to me. I opted for 24 where each episode within a season represents a different hour in the same day. I really just took a flier based on liking Kiefer Sutherland (the lead) in some of the films I’ve seen him in recently. I’m able to last through two episodes in one sitting and after cheating (one afternoon/evening I watched 4 episodes without being on the bike) I finished up the first season on Sunday.

Information technology plays a very big role in 24. The characters are always on their cell phones and that is the primary way that new is conveyed. There are surveillance cameras seemingly everywhere, controllable by the bad guys in ways that are very frightening (both to the good guy characters and to us viewers in the potential that this implies). How the bad guys get control of the surveillance cameras is explained in some parts because they have a mole on the inside working for them, but in other parts just seems to happen to make the story even more frightening. The mole (or possibly multiple moles) creates another twist to the story; nobody can be trusted. That creates more paranoia. Further there is strong reliance on computers to cross check databases of information and to decode encrypted content. The reliance on information technology is crucial for the next point.

The pace of 24 is frenetic, even manic. For the first few episodes it’s all you can do just to get your bearings. Things happen so fast with no apparent rhyme or reason. That is revealed later. There is horror in this story right from the outset but beyond horror there is a strong feeling of disorientation because it’s just not clear what is going on. Then, as one begins to understand what is going on, something else starts to become clear. None of the characters get any sleep. It’s an all nighter (followed by an all dayer) since the first episode is at 12 AM, which really means these folks should be going to bed when in fact they are just getting started. Much of the fast pace and horror happens while the characters are physically exhausted. This increases their stress. A good deal of the heroism in the Kiefer Sutherland’s character comes from being able to perform at a high level in spite of these circumstances.

About three quarters of the way through watching these episodes (once one starts on the first few they are highly addicting which is why I cheated) it occurred to me that the success of the show comes in part because in some way the characters share the same sort of experience as the viewers – a feeling of being overwhelmed by the circumstance, too much different type of information coming at you too quickly with no way to figure out the big picture, and technology the source of it all. The rest of us aren’t about to be assassinated or have family members kidnapped, true enough. But the other parts of the experience are the same. The always on, being connected, letting the cell phone determine the agenda; that’s a normal experience nowadays. The show captures that very well.

But the narrative itself, once it unfurls, is ordinary, even trite. Today in preparing to write this post I found this book review of some Werfel biographies from 1990. It described Werfel as loving to go to performance, whether play or opera, but despairing about midway through because by that point the only thing to look forward to was the end. I had that sort of feeling watching the last few episodes of the first seasons. They were entirely anticlimax. I will likely buy the next couple of seasons (or get them as a birthday present soon) but that is because of the stationary bike. As mind candy it works for me. As more serious entertainment it doesn’t.

For the more serious entertainment, I believe the pace has to be leisurely. How else can depth of thought be brought in? But how do kids nowadays develop a taste for that? Isn’t the conditioned response to information overload to demand more of the same? We need something to cut the vicious cycle. My suggestion is to have them read the Forty Days of Musa Dagh.

Learning Blockages, Doing Math Online, And the Failure of the LMS

There is still a difference between something and nothing, but it is purely geometrical and there is nothing behind the geometry.
- Martin Gardner

I may be teaching intermediate microeconomics again in the not too distant future, this time to adult learners in some professional program offered here, quite possibly in a totally online or blended format. So I’ve been thinking a bit about how I might do that effectively. Intermediate micro requires math. In my view the appropriate content soft pedals calculus ideas in favor of making the basic economics points in a discrete choice setting. But graphs, the kind one did in analytic geometry in high school, are appropriate, even essential. There is much economic intuition in the construction and proper interpretation of these graphs. Indeed, some instructors who teach this stuff think of this course as essentially applied math. My view is otherwise, there is also much economic intuition in considering real world issues that demand an economic analysis and in applying an appropriate economic framework to that real context. So I favor a balanced approach where one does both, some math but also some interpretation of real situations.

When I was teaching this course to 18-22 year old undergraduates, the course was taught by a wide variety of instructors. It had a poor reputation among many of the students, the majority of whom were majors in the College of Business. Their perception was both that it was difficult and that it wasn’t particularly relevant. The former, I believe, was because of the math, although all the students had taken Calculus (or placed out of it) ahead of time. The latter because they didn’t perceive the economic ideas to be foundational for what they might learn in their other Business courses. This may be an example of the broader problem that students fail to see the forest for the trees with respect to their studies and hence typically adopt an extreme instrumental approach to what they learn. Ironically, the economics metaphor can be extremely helpful for students in enhancing their soft skills, since as I’ve argued elsewhere it is much easier to communicate ideas if those are cast within a simple framework and the economics metaphor is precisely that. The math emphasis, with its seeming focus on technical detail, (the instructor intent is to supply needed rigor to the analysis) obscures the simplicity and elegance of the metaphor. So, unfortunately, mostly the students don’t get the economics to which they are exposed.

Whether I could now do a better job with this undergraduate audience will remain an open question for me. Given what I’ve gained from the learning technology job and some successful experiments I tried when teaching Principles to Campus Honors students, I have more experience with which to address the issue how to tap into the basic motivation of students taking the Intermediate course. For now my focus will be on adult learners. While there still are questions about providing motivation with that audience, I believe those students will not be quite as impatient nor will they be prone to cheat or to take their preparation lightly. And these students will almost certainly have a richer set of real word experiences that we can tap into to add flavor to what we will study. So I hope to avoid some of the pitfall I experienced teaching Intermediate in the past. Sometimes I felt there was a kind of Gresham’s Law at work. So, for example, I got into designing assessments with random numbers in large part to discourage cheating – each student would get an individualized version of the questions. But those were harder to write and so effort put forth in that dimension meant less effort to design assessments that would be broadly educative.

As I am writing this post, there was a very favorable piece in this afternoon’s Chronicle Update about the UTeach Program at the University of Texas-Austin College of Education, which shows that others have been thinking hard about related questions – are the skills for doing effective teaching of this sort transferable and what mechanisms promote that transfer? Their Publications Page appears to have many interesting resources to aid in thinking about these questions. I will work through some of those as I go through designing the intermediate microeconomics site after the New Year. But I’ve got a more immediate reason for writing now.

* * * * *

It’s now Thursday and my kids are on Holiday till after the New Years. Last week my younger son, an eighth grader and now somewhat of a history buff, bombed on an algebra exam. Many of his classmates did likewise, so the instructor sent home the graded exam as a practice test for a makeup that was given yesterday. I spent several evenings trying to coach my son into better understanding the math. It was an anxious time for both of us. I’m going to try to take some lessons from that experience and then circle back on the subject of this post.

Both my kids, like their entire generation, have been heavily into fantasy stories - Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Halo, etc. They have access to these stories in multiple media – DVD, Xbox, computer games, etc. The joy from these narratives led to other computer games that are historic fiction, not pure fantasy – Age of Empires, Civilization. The younger one, especially, learned a huge amount of historic detail as he encountered the narrative and challenges of playing these games. This is the benefit of immersive gaming environments that so many others have talked about. Interestingly, at least to me, the games have created a taste for historic narrative itself, whether that comes through a game or otherwise. The younger one is now an avid fan of the History Channel. It feeds on the learning need that the computer games created. And there are beginning to be signs that books will do likewise. Indeed, while the books are obviously slower to get through, they have that much more detail and a more intricate story. In other words, what was set in place as playful diversion with computer games has been transformed into learning via intrinsic motivation through a habit developed outside of school. After inwardly moaning that the games were a complete waste of time for several years, I’m very pleased with this more recent development.

Once one has what seems to be a good algorithm for learning one wants to try to learn everything that same way. Further, if the learning seems effortless and happens en passant, the learner develops an expectation that can continue to happen regardless of context. It makes it hard to admit that a subject is difficult and even harder when there aren’t coping skills in place to manage the learning more effectively. Math, particularly the algebra my son is being taught now, is quite different from history. There is no narrative into which to weave the various facts and procedures. There is only abstraction and the seeming arbitrariness of the various rules. These eight grade kids have experienced what appear to be arbitrary rules before (“i” before “e” except after “c” or when sounding like “a” as in weigh or neighbor). So there is a tendency to want to learn the math the same way they learned to spell – through rote. But that is wrongheaded. The problem is there is nothing else to ready them for a better approach. (My kids did some computer programs in the very early grades to learn spelling and arithmetic (perhaps those were in the Reader Rabbit series), but those apps were not nearly as compelling as the games they played later.)

The fundamental value of the math – something that will serve the kids big time later in life if they get it during Middle School and High School – is that there are multiple ways to represent the same idea. A big part of what we call critical thinking is to find a convenient representation, reason through it, and then translate the results back to some other representation that motivated the inquiry at first. But to an eighth grader who has yet to see the value of multiple abstract representations for his own thinking, the math just seems like an obstacle, one that might limit his GPA and thereby thwart some ambition for yet unknown down-the-road achievements. That induces stress qua performance anxiety that exacerbates the problem.

There is a further complication, one that I’ve witnessed repeatedly in my intermediate microeconomics teaching, that the math currently being taught rests on a foundation, one where the student’s understanding is shaky and vague. For my son, the critical conceptual base is arithmetic with negative numbers. If done slowly and patiently, he can reason through it well enough. But he has nowhere near the fluidity with such arithmetic as compared to his mastery of the historical facts about battles in the Civil War. This lack of comfort with the basics contributes to missing the forest for the trees and feeds into the desire to want to learn the math by rote.

Also, it appears nobody has coached him previously on the recording and record keeping of his thinking through the algebra. He writes an equation down and then immediately manipulates that. It doesn’t occur to him to write the equation again and manipulate the reproduction, keeping the original pristine. This matters not if the thinking is correct all the way through. But it matters a great deal if errors are made and one has to back track to find the error. If the steps are rendered distinctly, then each can be checked for correctness. I believe that learning how to spot errors and correct them is an additional crucial skill, one that doing math well encourages. Even very bright folks who can keep a lot of information in their heads can benefit on occasion from clear record keeping of the intermediate steps. Doing that lessens the cognitive load and allows for quicker recognition of the source of the error. It is a must for a student who is struggling with the concepts.

Now I want to switch gears slightly and recall a presentation that Julie Evans made at the annual ELI Conference last January, where she reported on the technology habits and desires of then current High School students. My recollection is that she found: (a) the students were alienated from the curriculum in general, (b) the students would like to see more technology used in their classes because it would better match their informal learning outside of school, and (c) Math, in particular, was the subject matter they thought would benefit the most from being taught with computers. I had the thought of Julie’s presentation in the back of my mind as I was trying to help my son.

So, as is my passion even though I knew timing-wise this effort would not help my son in this particular instance, I made an interactive spreadsheet that is a tutorial on determining the equation of a line given the coordinates of two points on the line. It is by no means perfect; for example, it can’t deal with vertical lines, some of the formatting is only so-so (particularly the mixed fraction for the Y intercept), and in the method it uses where items are hidden till they are needed, in a few cases that is done imperfectly.

But there are certain parts of it that appeal to me nonetheless and I want to emphasize those here. For each coordinate of the points, students can choose integer values from -20 to +20. This gives them an ample set to practice with so they can try this until they feel comfortable that they understand. There is an attempt to make the various stages at the right coincide with the plotting of some component in the graph on the left. This is meant to capture the dual representations of the same idea. To compute the run and the rise, there is enough information so students can actually count the answer. I believe that counting is more basic than arithmetic and allowing the students to count should help them feel comfortable about the calculations they make. Further, the data entry is by pushing a button rather than by typing in a number. They can hold down the button and watch the graph instead of the button, to see the consequence of their action. This gives them a qualitative sense of what is going on. Indeed the calculation of the Y intercept is deliberately done to encourage them to eyeball the graph. If they want to for the sake of their own understanding, they can in addition compute the Y intercept on a piece of paper to verify that they get the same answer either way.

* * * * *

Of course, since I’m writing this post quite soon after I completed the spreadsheet I’ve not tested this content on students and this being the holiday I doubt very much I’ll get my son to try it. So what I say next is pure conjecture. It doesn’t have use data to back it up. Nonetheless, I believe this is the type of content that the students Julie Evans surveyed would regard as useful and engaging for learning math. And what I want to argue here is that we should be authoring more of this type of content (and then get the students themselves to author even more of it both to aid their own learning and to help others). Unfortunately, we don’t see much content of this sort. What we do see is flatter, less interactive content, a lot of multiple choice questions, stuff that may be ok to assess the student’s understanding, but is much less useful in helping the students gain that understanding. This puts the technology in the role of the stick. We need more carrots, but we’re not getting them. Here’s my argument for what this the case.

I put in somewhere between 12 and 20 hours to author this tutorial. And for a similar tutorial on Long Division I made a couple of years ago, I spent the better part of a weekend in the construction. This is not because I was ignorant of the math or of the design issues. It is simply because there is a need to conceptualize in the construction – the layout and sequencing of the presentation matter as does the math and one has to see those pieces interplay well. I did this free form starting from a blank Workbook in Excel. I don’t believe there are too many people with the wherewithal to make content of this sort in this manner. They might be many others with an interest to author stuff of this sort, but they would need to rely on templates so they can focus on the content. Unfortunately, to my knowledge there are few if any templates of this sort for content creation. (The software our Physics department uses for student homework has some of this type of capability but it requires authors to submit Perl scripts. That works in Physics but is too much of an entry barrier to be more broadly applicable.)

We are now more than 12 years after I got started with learning technology and back in 1995 there was the promise to deliver on what I’m talking about right here on my campus with CyberProf and Mallard; the CAPA system from Michigan State was another good possibility. The more recent commercial course management systems and even most of the newer open source alternatives have delivered less in this dimension than might have been hoped. Part of that is because they’ve not yet integrated current technologies (Ajax) into the assessment tools, so you can’t yet do what I’ve got in my Excel tutorials – students do data entry that shows up in the graphs, which are rendered dynamically.

But another part of this is conceptually and I believe even the early assessment engines made this mistake, a mistake which parallels a conceptual error we’ve seen in the Banner student system, where the basic element is the section. That approach goes against the culture here where the basic unit is really the course – we have many multi-section courses as well as courses taught in a single section but that are cross listed. We spent a good part of the first year after Banner was implemented here reconciling our ordinary business processes concerning instruction with the peccadilloes of how Banner manages these things. (For example, the professor may have had access only to the lecture section, not to the discussion section, but it was the latter where the grades were to be entered.) The same sort of issues occurs with how the LMS deals with assessments.

There the basic element is the question, with question one essentially unrelated to question two except in the order in which they are presented to the students. In my tutorial each stage of the process coincides approximately to a question. That all the stages can be rendered in one unified view (I designed the tutorial with that goal in mind) is a huge benefit compared to where one must scroll to see subsequent or prior questions. Most of the learning management systems don’t even allow a numerical parameter to be passed between questions. Instead, with each subsequent question the parameters are set anew. And, most definitely, students can’t set the parameters themselves so they can practice. The notion of practice is in the number of attempts that are allowed, but not otherwise found in the quiz tool. Further most of these assessment engines don’t allow the provision of instant feedback in quiz mode (meaning the assessment is for credit) but rather only allow it for self-assessment. Instructors are apt, however, to design quizzes because they know students will do those to receive course credit. (Although it is also true that many students “do” the quizzes in a manner aimed at circumventing the intent. For example, with multiple choice that can be submitted many times, they simply try the various letter alternatives till they get the thing correct.)

All of this is unfortunate. The question is what to do about it. One possibility is to extend the argument I made about 18 months ago and add this to the wish list for what we need in an LMS. But now I’m less inclined to think that is the best answer. My sense is that we need to bring the discussion of what is educative content outside of any container that might deliver it. And I’d like to engage all my friends and colleagues who embrace a Constructivist approach toward learning to reflect and comment on this question, particularly as it pertains to the teaching of math content, especially when that math is used in a College level setting, such as the Intermediate Micro course that is my focus. To aid in that, I will close with a critique of my own approach.

In my view, the difference between what is construction “from scratch” and the reproduction of “spoon fed knowledge” has to be considered relative to the current understanding of the learner. In my tutorial the sequencing of the steps in built in, predetermined for the student’s point of view. In some cases there may be many different possible sequences that will produce the same result and in that case there is the possibility that such a tutorial creates the impression of a single correct approach. That would be unfortunate. In other cases the sequencing might matter more but it might be an important part of the construction for the learner to come up with the sequencing on his own. Then having it provided, as I’ve done in the tutorial, amounts to spoon feeding.

My retort is that tutorials of this sort represent early steps toward allowing the student to deal with complexity in the math. Students need to get past the approach in the tutorial onto harder stuff, but some students won’t be able to get there in one fell swoop. In any event, I hope we can separate out the question of what works for the students from the issue of whether we can generate this content given the limited free time of those who are likely to make it. For my part, I’ll try to make more of this sort of stuff, targeted at microeconomics instead of eighth grade algebra and see how it works with my own students.

Happy Holidays

The “L” Word

Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy!
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.

Bob Dylan I Shall Be Free No.10

A week ago my wife had a colonoscopy. She passed with flying colors. My role was to chauffeur, to tote stuff to the car, and to hold my wife’s hand as she went from cloudy headed to groggy after the procedure was over and the anesthesia had done its thing. I knew there’d be some waiting till we could go home so I brought a book along. I was reading Paul Krugman’s latest, The Conscience of a Liberal. The nurse who was attending to my wife saw I had a book in my hand and asked what I reading. After I showed it to her she asked, “you’re not a liberal, are you?” as if that were a condition on a par with venereal disease. We then had about a five minute exchange about my job, how I dress (pretty traditional if you ask me but it was cold that day so I was wearing thermal socks that had some color to them), and my style of speech, all of which unmistakenly pigeon-holed me as a professor – one of those, which if it weren’t a college town, might be a cause for alarm. I could have done without the chit chat. At least she took good care of my wife.

But here I don’t want to ponder how the rest of the world views those of us in academe. I’m writing as one insider to another. What does it mean to be a Liberal in how we do our jobs and in those norms we’d like to see followed in Higher Ed? Does advocating for learning technology necessarily make one a liberal because implementing the technology requires change? Is there some tie between Liberal in the workplace and, for example, our attitudes toward the upcoming presidential primaries and our preferred candidates? Those are the questions I want to address. Recently I’ve had several instances where colleagues either referred to me as a liberal or where they referred to others as more conservative. When a group of others make a similar if not identical determination, it’s time to investigate the proposition more closely. That’s one of my work maxims.

Here are a couple of other axioms that guide me on the job. The first I call the traffic helicopter approach to management. There are a lot of bottlenecks in implementing learning technology, perhaps more on a big bureaucratic campus like mine than at smaller colleges and universities. The trick is to spot them early and once having identified a problem then to “reroute traffic” so to speak. I was able to do this reasonably well when I ran the small Sloan Center for Asynchronous Learning Environments (SCALE). It became harder to do as we got bigger and became the Center for Educational Technology (CET) and became still more difficult when CET merged with the big academic computing unit, then CCSO, to form CITES. I’m doing a bit more of it now in my new job, though we also have elements of gridlock that I associate with large bureaucracies.

The second I’ve mentioned before in other posts. It’s called “no surprises” and is a sound principle of IT management (really of all management. The Bush Administration would have fared much better with the public had they practiced it.) It means that when some information becomes known internally and that information will affect the decisions of others, get that information out now, even if those changed decisions are perceived as not desirable by you. No surprises makes sense as a long run approach to managing information flows. If you take your medicine early and often, you can limit the pernicious consequences of the negative information. It’s not that people will love you for getting the information out, but if you get a reputation of holding in bad news, nobody will trust you. That’s worse, much worse.

I’m now going to apply those principles in critique of Krugman’s book. I hope it to illustrate my approach more generally and to give the reader all the ammunition needed to make a determination of whether I’m liberal or not.

Krugman’s ideal society is a middle class world that he knew in his youth with little income inequality, a general sense of optimism, based on real opportunities for all. This is the world that the New Deal created, one that emerged after World War II and held together for about 30 years thereafter. FDR, as creator of the New Deal, is Krugman’s hero. Krugman would like to see a return to the principles that guided the New Deal, mainly that society should actively redistribute income to create more equality. This is a society with progressive taxation, a large fraction of the workforce unionized there by driving up the incomes of the working class members of society, and some substantial social stigma attached to CEOs and other high powered corporate executives receiving exorbitant compensation. In the main I agree with Krugman on this. Where I might disagree a tad, at least with how this was framed in Krugman’s book, is that there needs to be incentive to encourage innovation in society, the ‘70s were a period of no productivity growth and ultimately were marked by “Stagflation,” but we’ve swung way too far in that direction since the start of the Reagan Revolution.

Krugman argues that the more recent move toward inequality in income is not a consequence of globalization, as some others have argued. Rather, he asserts, it is a consequence of deliberate political acts. The welfare state of the New Deal and later the Great Society would have sustained if the Republican party had continued to be dominated with Eisenhower Republicans, who were moderate and not so different from their Democratic counterparts on the social agenda. (Did Ozzie and Harriet vote Democrat or Republican?) Krugman offers up Barry Goldwater as the father of “movement conservatism,” a different and more radical type of Republican; one who aimed to dismantle the welfare state. Goldwater failed miserably in 1964. But he sowed the seeds for what would come later. So far I’m still on board with Krugman.

The big issue for Krugman is how the radicalism of movement conservatism became so accepted, especially since much of the message was anti-populist, the very rich have benefitted enormously from the approach but the rest of us only a little and quite a few of us not at all. How can a rational electorate, the vast majority not in the very rich category, become enraptured by an approach to economics that does themselves a disservice? That is a puzzle which requires explanation.

Looking backward at history the path looks deterministic and there is a tendency to see things in terms of their primary cause. This partly explain why Krugman wrote the book he did. Further, Krugman is in an odd position writing this book, especially given his importance as a columnist for the New York Times. It’s as if much of the book is a primer for Democratic Presidential hopefuls, that they should press the points that Krugman argues for; to return to income redistribution policies that benefit the many. So he needs a winning rhetorical argument to win them over. As I’ve argued elsewhere, first here and then here, the best rhetorical argument comes from applying a very simple model in a consistent way and then just hammering on that over and over again. The model does all the work one needs to frame the issues. So the audience has no trouble understanding the points being made.

Western Europe (not so much the UK but certainly Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc.) has never abandoned the Welfare state; this in spite of globalization. Further, unions are much more prevalent there while CEOs are paid much more here. This makes the situation in the US look exceptional and so Krugman offers up an explanation that focuses on that. The coalition that Roosevelt forged for implementing the New Deal included the Dixiecrats in a crucial role. The south was poorer than the country as a whole and so it would benefit disproportionately from the redistribution policies of the New Deal. And the Roosevelt Administration more or less kept a blind eye to Jim Crow. Brown versus the Board of Education didn’t happen till Eisenhower was president.

But when it became clear that the Great Society aimed to improve the lot of Blacks in the country, something that Southern Whites were dead against at the time, there was now a reason for these same Southern Whites to vote against their own economic interests so they could put it to the Blacks. This was the essence of the movement conservative message and this is why it was a winning strategy, according to Krugman. First there were the Reagan Democrats. Then it became fashionable for Southern Whites to become Republican. That was the ballgame.

Krugman indeed hammers on racism and in my reading of the book he has two scapegoats – the Southern White racists and the politicians who have pandered to them. This scapegoat approach may be a good rhetorical device, but I quickly tired of it and then thought it limiting, even harmful. First, I believe it is not entirely accurate historically as the full explanation is more complex. Second, in terms of trying to implement redistribution policies, it is not sufficient to focus on the enemy who is them. One also needs to work through the enemy who is us. There is none of that till the chapter on Health Care reform, the penultimate chapter, the one chapter in the book I liked because unlike the rest of the book it got all the issues out on the table. But in all the prior chapters there is not this completeness in considering the issue. There is only the issue of racism, over and over again. Krugman must have written 5 times about Reagan announcing his candidacy for the Presidency in Philadelphia Mississippi, where the civil rights workers were killed. I get it. Keep it simple and stay on message. But as a reader I don’t have to like it. So let me take on the historical accuracy and enemy who is us issues in turn.

The ascendancy of movement conservatism was far from inevitable in my view. Many random events (random from the point of view of the story Krugman tells) ended up mutually supporting this outcome. None of them get a mention in Krugman’s book. I’ll focus on three of these.

Gerald Ford was a Republican in the Eisenhower tradition. Reagan tried to run for President in 1976. But Ford was the sitting President and he won the nomination. There is no way to know this, but I think it a likelihood that Ford would have won the election had it not been for the Pardon. After Watergate, most everyone hated Nixon, certainly Democrats and then many Republicans too. Ford explained that the Pardon was necessary for the country to heal. Maybe so. I’m not so sure. The Pardon was a huge assist to the Carter candidacy. Consider Ford as President from 1977- 1980, but imagine Ford facing the same Stagflation that Carter had to deal with and imagine the Shah falling and the hostage crisis in Iran happening anyway. Now when Reagan runs in 1980 it’s no slam dunk and quite possibly a Democrat wins that election as a reaction to the previous regime. But the Pardon set in motion the timing that we did observe. It’s not in Krugman’s book at all. It doesn’t help his case. But it clearly did set in motion a chain of events that contributed to Reagan winning in 1980.

Next consider that soon into Reagan’s term there was an assassination attempt on his life. This made Reagan a hero even to those voters who didn’t agree with him politically. (I wasn’t one of them. I never liked Reagan. That may be prima facie evidence that I am a liberal.) He was able to create a unity of purpose in the country that is relevant for the next point. This is the same type of support the Bush II received right after 9/11.

Paul Volker was appointed by Carter. There was a horrific inflationary expectation built into our economy when Volker took office. There was a lot of debate at the time of whether one could take inflation out of the economy and achieve a soft landing at the same time. Volker did the former but not the latter. He pursued a tight money policy that made credit hard to obtain. It induced a rather severe recession. The Reagan White House, for all the errors it made with Supply Side Economics, more or less let Volker have his way and did not impede him. Without Reagan’s popularity this wouldn’t have been possible, or at a minimum would have been much more difficult. So we endured the recession, wrested inflation out of the economy, and since then it has been much more under control. One of the unanticipated good consequences of the recession is that it encouraged the OPEC cartel strategy to unfold. The oil price drops made it much easier to keep inflation in check.

These macroeconomic wins happened under the Reagan watch. I think one can make a good case that Reagan policies did little to achieve them, other than, as I said, letting Volker stick with the tight money policy that was necessary at the time. This macroeconomic success allowed movement conservatism to grow more or less in an unfettered way. Again, none of that is in Krugman’s book.

Krugman also ignores two other factors I’d deem critical, not for his rhetorical argument but for implementing the redistribution policies he wants to see. The first is the graying of America and its effect as a political force. Krugman does say in his Health Care chapter that seniors consume health care disproportionately, but he doesn’t push on the political implications of that. Let me do that here. Quite a few of those Southern Whites who vote Republican, especially in states like Florida and Arizona, are formerly Northern Whites who have made the trek southward. Race may be a secondary issue for them but taxes are a big deal. They don’t like taxes. Especially taxes that are clearly redistributive in nature from old to young (think of funding for schools). When they were younger they may very well have been liberal in their political outlook. But a conservative point of view matches their current mindset. On the other hand, they treat Medicare benefits as an entitlement and would certainly not want to see those cut in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, they’d very much like to see the health benefits increase. They will consume those. This is simply an expression of self-interest, enlightened or not.

The other issue is the decline in the personal savings rate. My parents, who lived though the Great Depression, were voracious savers. It was habit for them. They lived frugally, if comfortably. They could have spent more on themselves but saved both as a form of self-protection for old age and so they could pay the college tuition for me and my sibs and also for the grandkids. My generation lives less frugally. The saving habit was not inculcated as severely. The perceived need was not so great. And in the next generation it is weaker still. Since by definition income minus savings is consumption, saving less means consuming more. Over consumption is like a more general form of over eating. At first it might actually be distasteful, but after a while it becomes addicting. We know it is very hard for addicts to get rid of their habits.

Those in society who are well off but not super rich, in other words those remaining members of the middle class, may very well dislike an income redistribution approach where they end up paying greater taxes without seeing any obvious concomitant increase in benefits, especially if their personal savings rate is low, because they’ll be forced to confront their consumption indulgence.

In other words, we’ve learned to be greedy and we’re used to it. Rising above personal greed is possible, first by making long term arguments about where we might end up, with society more healthy overall, and then also specifically in talking to seniors about what near term things can be done to assure them that changes put in place won’t be too drastic on them. But Krugman does none of that in the book. On the overconsumption, he writes a throw-away line to the effect that most of this spending is in housing and it happens as parents try to move to good school districts to get better education for their children. Of course there is an element of truth in this but it is not the whole story. Krugman ignores the rest of the story. In my view that is an error. Krugman wants to put a simple argument into the field. Simple arguments tend to win the rhetorical fights. But they are a bear when it comes time to implement policy.

Krugman argues that Health Care is the issue for the 2008 Presidential Campaign. I agree. He would really like to see a single payer solution but doubting that is politically feasible he suggests some alternatives. These will require additional funding. He argues this is doable simply from rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Those cuts are due to expire in 2010. But Krugman also notes that Health Care is an area that has been hyperinflationary and that is because almost any innovation – a new procedure or a new drug – raises the cost of care. So either Health Care may very well require additional funds beyond the Bush Tax Cuts, or the new solution will have to ration care in some sensible way. Coming to a resolution on that will not be easy.

Krugman also argues that if Health Care Reform is successful, then it will create a taste for government solutions in other areas (for example to replace all the old roads and bridges so we don’t experience another debacle like the collapse of the bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis). He argues that is another reason why movement conservatives are against health care reform. And in that he is probably right. But what of the Liberals who actually want to see such investment in America. Where do they see the funds for doing that? And for those of us in Higher Education who may be expecting a jolt from the Feds so that like universal health insurance everyone in the country has a guarantee to be able to get a college education, how are we going to pay for it?

If Krugman were to take a No Surprises approach to his argument, I think he’d be forced to say your taxes will go up. Everyone’s taxes will go up. We’ll make the system more progressive so they’ll go up disproportionately more on the rich, but everyone will have to pay. That’s how we’ll fund the other government spending Krugman talks about aside from health care.

But there is no discussion of that in the book. There is only the scapegoating regarding racism and pandering to it. In the eye for an eye world that is national politics, perhaps Krugman needs to write his book his way, to counter all the rhetoric from the conservatives who don’t want to see health care reform at all. But, if that’s the reason, I wouldn’t use the word “Conscience” in the title.

I’m kind of surprised he didn’t make any argument about the enemy who is us. If we were talking about environmental issues, there’d be no getting around it. Maybe he feels we’re still not ready for those type of arguments. But I, for one, feel that putting them off makes it harder to implement his reforms.

At this point in my life I’m confused about whether the term liberal applies to means or ends. I’m not that far from Krugman on the latter, but am quite uncomfortable in what he writes on the former. What does that make me?

Failure of Transitivity

Back in the ‘80s when I taught intermediate microeconomics, I would begin with the axiomatic approach to choice which goes as follows.

For a set of alternatives, A, suppose there is a relationship among its members, R, such that

Completeness: For all x, y in A either xRy or yRx. (In other words all pairs of alternatives can be ranked.)

Reflexivity: For all x in A, xRx.

Transitivity: For all x, y, z in A if xRy and yRz then xRz.

In this case R is called a preference ordering over A. To make some more sense of this, when xRy but not yRx, write xPy and say “x is preferred to y,” while if xRy and yRx, write xIy and say “x is indifferent to y.” Thus xRy can be read as “x is preferred or indifferent to y.”

When teaching my students, we’d discuss whether completeness makes sense. Are there cases where two alternatives can’t be ranked? We’d reduce this to situations where the decision maker didn’t have enough information. He or she could rank the alternatives after the fact, when the information was revealed. I’d say we can finesse that issue but for now let’s assume no uncertainty (this is how it is modeled theoretically). Reflexivity caused no trouble. It makes sense that an alternative is indifferent to itself. It would be a problem if it were preferred to itself. Students would invariably call Transitivity “being logical.” It made sense to them, though I’d let them know that upon occasion it failed in experiments where people were tested to see if they act according to their preferences. Mostly in those experiments those subjects where transitivity failed would report they had made a mistake.

When there is a preference ordering and the set of alternatives is finite, there is a choice point, x* defined by x*Ry for all y in A. In other words, x* is at least as good as any other available alternative according to the preferences. It weakly dominates all other alternatives and it itself is undominated. That is the entire theory in a nutshell.

Right now in college football, transitivity is being severely challenged. This season teams that were ranked number 2 routinely lost the following weak and then fell from their lofty perch. And several teams that were number 1, also lost to find their rankings dip. Among the various inconsistencies we’ve seen this season, I particularly like this cycle.

Michigan beat Illinois. Ohio State beat Michigan. But Illinois beat Ohio State.

This is a classic cycle. Based on head to head competition only, it is not possible to rank these three teams. That they are indeed ranked differently reflects their performance against others. This might seem a trifling but the ratings have been remarkably unstable this year because past performance has not been as strong as usual predictor of winning the next game. Contrast the Week 7 BCS and AP poll results where University of South Florida is ranked 2 in both polls and Illinois is out of the top 25 entirely, with the final results, where USF is ranked in the 20s and Illinois has moved quite a bit ahead of them. One might explain the anomaly of USF’s early high ranking by the fact that it was undefeated at the time, but Hawaii was undefeated for the entire season and they are ranked 10^th. Hmmm.

For any situation with three alternatives, when there is a cycle there is no choice among them. Life goes on and a selection has to be made, true enough. But is the selection “rational” according to well established criteria? It can’t be. There is no rational selection. It doesn’t exist.

One sometimes hears the expression, “you have no choice.” But that really means there is one and only one available alternative. Similarly, there is a Hobson’s Choice, where there are two alternatives, the other being the status quo. We have language for those cases, even if the language doesn’t quite match up with axiomatic choice theory.

We don’t really have language for the case where there are cycles. We talk about “making the tough choice” but the issue is typically not that there are cycles, but rather that there are both upside and downside consequences in a binary choice setting.

The paucity of language to describe the situation notwithstanding, I think we face cycles in a lot of settings that are of concern to Learning Technologists. Consider this little scenario, cooked admittedly, but not without realism.

There are three alternatives:

x) Faculty Member uses online materials from Publisher via Publisher hosting and no contract with publisher.

y) Campus writes a contract with Publisher for Publisher hosted content on behalf of all faculty members on Campus.

z) Campus insists that all content possibly involving student grades must reside on Campus hosted Course Management System. Publisher content must be put there, if it is to be utilized.

And then, suppose there are three criteria by which to rank the alternatives:

1. Security
2. Academic Freedom
3. New Partnerships Model

Further suppose that by each individual criterion alone the rankings are straightforward and are of the form:

1) First z, then y, and last x.

2) First x, then z, and last y.

3) First y, then x, and then last z.

Each criterion has a well established ordering of the alternatives but the different criteria disagree as to which is preferred. The question is how to aggregate the criteria. One might impose some further notion, such as fairness, so that none of the criteria are entirely abandoned. One possibility, would be to use Majority Rule. With the above one gets:

zMy, yMx, but xMz,

in other words, a cycle. Technically, there is nothing new here. It is well known that Majority Rule can produce cycles when there are 3 candidates and, indeed, this indirectly is an argument for a two party system. Further, Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem tells us Majority rule is not special this way. There is no rule that produces a satisfactory result for all possible rankings What may be new here, however, is to take this known result and apply to how we make decisions in an IT world.

Standard practice in doing an IT procurement is to first gather requirements prior to choice of product. Each requirement is analogous to the criterion in the above example. Then the various products under consideration are ranked separately by each requirement. Then somehow the results are tallied and aggregated and a choice is made. This can definitely produce cycles, particularly if there is not one product that shines above the rest.

Political scientists have understood the issues with cycles for some time. The power of a committee chair rest in large part from being able to set the agenda and thereby knock off some of the competition early on through preliminary votes. Sometimes we do something similar with IT procurement, where we make certain criteria mandatory. For example, back in late 2002 when we did the Campus RFP for a learning management system, we required the back end to be Unix/Oracle. We did get two bids, one from Blackboard and the other from WebCT. But a potential third bid from Angel was not forthcoming because they were Windows/SQL. At the time, nothing else in the Angel offering could offset that requirement, though in retrospect I think we should have looked at them more seriously, so our faculty and instructional designers could consider their functionality.

The problem with mandatory criteria is to rationalize why some items are in that category while others are only strongly preferred. As it turns out, we based our RFP in part on the RFP written by the Wisconsin System. Ironically, they ultimately went with Desire2Learn, a different Windows/SQL system. Obviously, at some point Wisconsin backed away from the mandatory nature of the Unix/Oracle requirement.

Cycles are becoming more prominent for me now, in my job in the College of Business. I’m confronting the following decision regularly. There is some category of software. That campus might very well provide a flavor in that genre. An alternative possibility is for my College to host a different flavor. A third possibility is to outsource the service. Among the criteria that are important for us in considering these options are Usability and Functionality for students and faculty, Budget, Security, and, for the within College hosting, whether we have the requisite expertise to support the service.

When there are cycles the status quo trumps new entrants. I think we see a lot of that on campus. It translates as inertia. We also see failure to communicate openly on issues of this sort. Is that because other folks recognize the lack of transitivity and are trying to keep the problem under wraps? I don’t know. It sure would be nice to find a Learning Technology initiative we all could embrace.