The quality of a Western education

Here is a very good video by a graduating student from an American University, top of her class, who had some critical remarks to make about her experiences at university, and about the quality of her education.

The more important question is why the American education fails to live up to the expectations of thinking people. I would suggest that there are a number of reasons why this is the case:

1. Public control and funding for education. Religious control of private education, as well as relativist standards of comparison which mean that governments set the standards of education.

2. Collectivist values in society which prompt progressive people to pursue materialist 'freedoms' because their minds are otherwise enslaved to a dmocratic system which preserves a pretense of freedom, but which in fact offers no real participation, representation or freedom. The source of those collectivist values is of course our religious legacy of altruism and self-sacrifice. We are still 'subjects' of God and government despite the rhetoric.

3. The lack of accountability and rational standards held by judicial officers, politicians and more broadly a good number of the public (i.e. voters).

4. Moral relativism which impales people to accept relativist and folk responses to everyday problems. People are not thinking, not challenging the systems which guide their lives. One of the fundamental flaws of our education system is its lack of critical thinking.

What is the worth of a teacher?

What is the value of a teacher? You might think very little judging by the variability in pay rates between countries. The question however is: How do you objectively value the worth of a teacher?

Education in most countries is publicly administered, such that the negotiation of pay rates comes down to arbitration or some formula. i.e. Inflation-adjusted pay rates.

The reality however is that teachers are inclined to move away from such arbitrarily asserted pay rates; and for good reason, they are divorced from the facts. There are any number of factors which affect the value and worth of a teacher. The question is - how do you gauge them. It is a basis for utter disagreement. The market of course offers a solution. The market pits buyers against sellers. It compares your market value against others. Teachers would assert their value in terms of pay per class, with certain hours of preparation, with perhaps a bonus incentive for good student performance. This would necessarily entail accountability standards so that teachers could be rewarded for better effort.

Does this seem reasonable? I would think so, because this is the way most of us engage in the market place. Its not a universal rule, but its the fundamental premise of how markets function. Now lets look at the pay claims for NZ teachers. Firstly they have the misfortune of dealing with a monopoly. Clearly they are happy about this because they never attempt to demand privatisation of the schools, so you know they are not about accountability or fair pay.

What they do embody however is extortion. Just as they are employed by an 'effective monopoly', their strongly unionised labour force effectively acts as a monopoly supplier of teachers. You can therefore imagine that you will get two self-righteous bodies vying for the upper hand. The problem is that there are students in between. The implication is that you have both parties using extortion in order to get what they want:

1. Teachers can go on strike to demand higher pay, better conditions

2. The Education minister can repudiate any claims, reasonable or not, knowing that teachers have no where else to go.

When people are subject to extortion they tend to get very self-righteous. The problem of course is that its not simply an inflation adjustment. Teaching has changed. More demands are made upon them, and their performance is not entirely within their control. They don't parent their students, they don't teach them manners, they might not have the resources, they might not have access to the training they need. The implication is that the expectations placed upon them might be entirely unreasonable given what they have to work with. We might ask then, why do we have this highly centralised system which precludes the market finding more reasonable solutions. Private education is no magic panacea, particularly if its outcomes are driven by government-inspired 'pricing formulas', and its administrators have poor management skills. Privatisation can be a dangerous solution in such a context. We have already witnessed several flawed privatisations in NZ.

Clearly though this industry is ripe for a solution....but instead we have two parties trying to extort concessions from each other with the kids suffering in between. It is not to unlike the breakdown of a family, where the parents use the kids as an instrument of abuse.

In the latest NZ Herald article, we have John Key suggesting that NZ teachers ought to accept the nominal pay increase because the government is under financial strain. That strikes one as unfair because there is no reason why teachers ought to carry the burden. Its a bad argument. 'A good offer under the circumstances'. This is bad politics. Perhaps John Key ought to drop politician salaries instead, or reduce our contribution to Afghanistan, which was only ever a symbolic gesture and a little practice in 'real war' for the troops.

Without knowing the generosity of previous teacher pay increases, or comparative rates of pay for teachers, it is impossible to establish if teachers are over or under-paid. The reality is that teachers are probably overpaid because they are not advocating privatisation of education, in which case their salaries would be determined by the market. This would at the very least achieve a relativist standard of value, and reward objectivity. That is the theory if there is sufficient respect for logic. That is of course less likely in a political system based on extortion...sorry 'democratic correctness'....tyranny of the majority. That is after all why teachers are losing. The indifferent, passive majority cares little about the gripes of teachers...and they might even be contemptuous of them for disrupting their working lives. After all, governments are just so reasonable. I just believe every word that John Key says. He's so handsome.

If I assume that teacher salaries were previously reasonable, then the current pay offer by the government looks a little low. i.e. They are offering 0.5% plus a $1000 bonus worth 1.5%, which equals 2%. Given inflation of 2% before the GST impact, that does not look generous...but they may have had huge increases under the Labour government. The teachers are seeking 4%, plus a lot of other administrative cost burdens live teacher training, smaller class sizes. These issues strike me as government government responsibilities. I agree with the sentiment, but if they want these things, let them support privatisation, which would give parents a choice, as opposed to having teachers extorting government with kids school hours in order to impose their 'delusional' standards of care. Given that teachers are not 'market savvy', we cannot attribute market realities as one of their strong points.

Alcohol making Otago researchers insane

Does that title strike you as insane, then you have not heard anything yet. Wait for some serious research. Some researchers at Otago University are claiming that alcohol is too cheap because of wage growth. They simply accept the assertion that cheap alcohol equates with higher consumption. Incredibly, they also argue that alcohol is cheaper than 'bottled' water. The implication being that kids are more likely to drink alcohol than bottled water. If you take that logic to its final conclusion, we are all inclined to drink from the tap heads at public toilets rather than buy alocohol from expensive up-market bars. But all that context is ignored.

This research sinks to new levels of laxative indulgence. Too much research is based on simply correlation. This is far worse. This research makes arbitrary assertions based on spurious evidence.

Might a make a more pertinent research finding. Academic research is far more likely to be crap because the people who funded it were disempowered by governments and forced to 'unconditionally' forfeit funds for research and other activities, even though the community and government had no interest in the findings. Government was simply interested in the 'appearance' of doing good, and researchers were only interested in the appearance of doing something worthwhile. Why? All collectivist political regimes are not interested in facts, only relativist comparisons which keep them in power. I guarantee you will not find an academic interested in researching that premise. Don't worry....just look at the results of their work... There is plenty of empirical evidence...particularly if you look into climate change 'science'.

You will not hear governments criticise academics, just as they will not criticise the church, or the media. Its all very cozy.

Education and training in the Philippines

Today I had the pleasure of meeting the Chancellor of a local high school & college in the Philippines. Unlike in a great many countries I see that the Philippines offers accelerated growth to its capable academics. I wonder if this is by design or by necessity in as much as many of its better staff would be lured to foreign countries. I was introduced to the senior academic staff of the facility, all of whom implied high educational standards. My partner conveyed that the chancellor as a teacher some years ago was able to make history fun. This is interesting because I had the same experience learning philosophy when I was young. A great many people would consider philosophy boring. To me it was the most interesting and important subject. The reason was my professor:
1. Also made it fun by ridiculing ideas of other philosophers using sarcasm
2. He also grounded those ideas in facts so the education became relevant to people's lives.

Of course you can examine the professional qualifications of an academic institution, but its not until you see the concrete expression of the leaders management that you begin to see the flaws in the system. Certain things like the disparity in remuneration between the West and East need to be addressed. We had the opportunity to tour the grounds. This institution I suspect is one of the better performing institutions in the country. Its programs convey the right intent, though there are changes that need to be made in execution/implementation. Its positive that the chancellor has an MBA, but the issue, did he attain an MBA by necessity or by desire. Its clear to me that he did it by necessity because throughout our meeting he conveyed his desire to escape the business side of education and to spend more time on his creative writing interests. This of course differentiates his thinking from mine because I have been interested in science and business since I was 13 years old. For me they are a seamless integration. This is why I am focused on the business side.
So we have a academic institution which is running a commercial hotel, a travel agency and a cafe in order to teach staff how to manage such businesses. The problem is that they are really not 'commercial businesses' in as much as they are not geared for profit. Let me give you some examples. The travel agency was unable to make a flight booking because they were unable to contact their agency. They could not even investigate flights. The cafe meal was average, the student staff were polite, but shy. We could have walked out without paying because the students were not really invested in making this business profitable. The cashier was turned away from us, maybe working on an assignment. A real business would make sure customers paid. The hotel has low occupancy because its over-priced and located within student grounds. The problem is that this facility is not just an academic institution, its an opportunity to give students real experience running a real business. So what I would be looking to do would be:
1. The key is to make the experience as real for students as possible.
2. How to retain professional academics to stop them drifting overseas
3. How to get funding for research

Achieving first world commercial standards
Clearly if you want to offer a standard of hospitality which will achieve high standing in the global tourism market then you need some conception of first world standards. The best chance of achieving this is by finding Filipinos abroad who are interested in running such a business for commercial gain. The Philippines cannot match first world standards of remuneration. The error is to think they need to. Yes, the Philippines is losing a lot of staff to the first world, but that is fine, some will come back as business owners. The solution is to offer or remunerate the CEO of the commercial unit well, the rest need not be. The CEO (leader) is critical. Why? The CEO ensures high standards, provides critical, conceptual input, and ensures excellence in quality control and buesiness development. Cheap labour can do everything else.

Retain professional academics to stop them drifting overseas
Remunerating such a person, maybe even a foreigner if you want to attract higher critical thinking skills, is easy. Simply make it a commercial business unit and not a part of the academic institution. Afterall it is supposed to be a commercial experience. So let Filipinos profit from the experience. If there is no satisfactory Filipino staff then lease the facility to a foreigner for 10 years so they can train up a Filipino, but allow them to make a good profit until they do. The Philippines will benefit from a plethora of better skilled students.
We have to remember that skilled Filipinos are going overseas as staff. Foreigners are coming here as business owners. Why would a person go overseas if there was a local business opportunity, unless they had some aversion to risk. So the intent is to offer risk-opportunities in the Philippines, to teach risk management skills, to create a risk culture, so Filipinos stay in the Philippines, or come back when they have the skills, because they are motivated by business opportunities rather than lifesytle, because I can think of no better place to set up a business given the low cost of labour.
The Philippines is not the only country facing this dilemma. NZ has the same problem. This is a traditional problem because NZ has long been penalised by its small isolated market. NZ has however the opportunity to offer the world an array of niche services, particularly online opportunities. For a Western country it is particularly attractive for high level programming, online content development, etc. Cheap movie making. It would not lose people overseas if it had a culture of entrepreneurism which saw them take a business risk rather than make a lifestyle decision and go overseas. This will not stop people going overseas, but it will encourage them to go abroad an save for the day when they can go overseas and return to set up a business.

How to get funding for research
This Philippine college was investing a lot of energy in soliciting external support from business. It was particularly focused on building relationships with Filipinos abroad, particularly alumini, both to encourage them to return, to support the institution, to inspire students, and perhaps as future educators. They were also hoping to expand research at the college. These are credible objectives, but several points needs to be made. Business people have a commercial focus, so when they enter an academic institution they can sense the different culture. That gap needs to be broken. Only when that gap is broken will research funds be forthcoming. There is no shortage of funds in the world, there is a shortage of credible sales propositions because of a shortage of critical self-reflection.
I would encourage this academic institution to take the hotel-travel agency-cafe out of the school grounds and place it in a commercial setting, and run it like a business. If this is training they don't even need to spend on infrastructure. They need only develop a relationship with an existing business (hotel, cafe, travel agent) owner wanting cheap staff and free training. Staff could be trained in off-peak periods. This would free up floor space for other school activities like research, which don't require a shop-front presence.

Should you join the military?

There are a great many people who are look upon the military as an attractive career move. I dare say there are positions in the military that carry a lot of responsibility and a high level of technical skill. The problem with the military is ultimately your boss - you are working for the government. The implication is that you are one small butt being pushed around by a mighty powerful government. There might be a tendency to look at the military and say that the chanced of being killed are far lower, that you get to see the world, and that you will make some lifelong friends. Yeh, I can see how that would appeal. But consider that you are working for the government. So what is wrong with working for the government?
The problem is that the government has you where they want you. You sign a contract right? Well it may as well be a lifelong prison sentence because 10-20 years (depending on the country) is a very long time, even if you get a tax-free pension for life. The carrot to get people to join the military depends on the nut case joining:
1. Free education: The opportunity to get a university education paid by the military is a compelling carrot for those with no money. I care say the low enrolments in Australia is because we have a university loan scheme. One of its attractions is

You might ask - Why am I so against the military? Actually I actually think joining the military is a perfectly worthy activity. The problem is the owner. The problem is being employed by government because they are the enemy. The notion that the role of a military officer is to obey orders comes straight out of the Nazi lexicon. I can appreciate that in a certain context it makes sense to follow orders, e.g. On the battlefield, it does not serve the cause to engage in intellectual debate. The problem is that orders or 'the code' is dogma that is enforced arbitrarily and absolutely. There is no context in which soldiers should not think. No where is thinking more important than on the battlefield. Humans make mistakes - officers included. It is better they make them in peacetime than when it really counts - on the real battlefield.

When it comes down to it, being the military is not about serving 'freedom'. Soldiers don't study freedom, ethics and the like, they study how to 'serve' or 'obey' like any good Nazi soldier learned. The prime minister of Australia has remarked during the Iraq campaign on the bravery and supreme sacrifice paid by the fallen soldiers'. The problem is - that is the moral code of the Nazis and other enemies. It was a sacrifice these soldiers made because they really had no idea what they were getting themselves into, and they paid a price for it. I am not anti-war or even an advocate of peace. I spend most of my life in conflict fighting for the values I believe in. But I don't resort to lecturing people without knowing my own values. I fix my own home before educating others. If you read the latest PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on tax, you will observe that Australia and the USA have among the highest taxes on business in the world. If their intent was to defend freedom I would expect them to rank 1-10th, not 100+. Britain was one of the better countries in 59th place. Is that good enough? What are our soldiers fighting for? Is it freedom, or for the entrenched political powers of our politicians. Based not on their rhetoric, but based on their actions, I am quite certain that our foot soldiers are being used to serve the political interests of our politicians. Tax payers are just as worse off. Called upon to fund military campaigns overseas that are baseless.
There are countless ethical battles we could fight overseas if we believed in principles. But instead our politicians are too selective. Their intent instead is not 'defence' of principles, defence of freedom, but strategic 'gains'. Their ultimate goal is to establish a network of 'democratic' nations like them - corrupt, unprincipled and self-serving. The rhetoric will long be forgotten as it always was meaningless. That will be apparent if you keep reading my blogs.
I once asked an Australian soldier if he would fight in a war which he did not believe in. He could not answer me. It was a testimony to a military education he had, which did not serve him, but instead served the politicians in-charge. Anyway who has served in the military understands that its all a huge pretense. Honour? There is no honour in subjugating your mind to a political hierarchy. Herein lies the problem with the military.
Another problem is that fact that its a 'safe decision'. Its all too easy for the government to pay for your education, for you to learn a trade, to see the world. Believe me - its not worth the sacrifice. You only need to look at the mindlessness of the soldiers who serve. You occasionally see incidents that make it into the press. In Australia, there was the incident of 'wedgies' between soldiers, sticking objects up people's anus. These are the actions of mindless people.
The reason why these soldiers degenerate in their thinking is that they are often from poor backgrounds to start off with. Their military service only entrenched such thinking. If the military was such a good option they would not have to spend on huge advertising campaigns to appeal to the uneducated. If it was such a great life choice the opportunity would spread by word of mouth. If the military was such a good option, they would not need to offer such enducements for you to join, nor contracts to get you to stay. They target young people because they need compliant, ignorant people who can conceive of no better life. But they need officers - so they also appeal to slightly more intelligent people who will take the safe option. Smart kids from poor backgrounds. I wish the idea of giving them discipline was appealing, but its not.
Ask yourself what is discipline. Its about directing or modelling desired action through negative consequences. Its a value system which is based on negative premises like fear, as opposed to positive values such as logic, integrity, intelligibility. So when we see US military personnel feeding dog faeces to Arabs in Abu Graib prison in Afghanistan, are you inclined to think there are some bad apples? I am inclined to think that soldiers follow the value system they have been trained to follow. If you are in Iraq, there is no military commander around, then you need not fear if you are taught that the military look after their own. That is the culture until the press leaks or exposes some travesty that demands accountability. The same can be said for the high incidence of rapes in combat zones. Trust me - based on military precedence you can appreciated that you don't know the death of the scandals that occur in the military. They cover up every embarrassment. You cannot talk about freedom without talking about an open, accountable military force, and we don't have one.
We are a long way from the days when you can be proud to be part of the military. Ask yourself what the politicians are fighting for. Read their websites, and you will find you cannot reconcile their political rhetoric with their actions.