Right Wing Nation

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to here.

Ken DeRosa has an article up called Why National Standards Won’t Work, in which he says:

This would be defense’s exhibit A. We’d quickly run out of exhibit letters if we had to label all of the Fed’s inanities in their brief existence.

The same stooges influence policy at the federal level as at the state level, after all.

Indeed, and those would be the same stooges who thought this was a good idea. Let’s look at this commentary by Joanne Jacobs (emphasis mine):

Do national standards have a chance? Prospects have rise from none to slim, writes guest columnist Kevin Kosar on This Week in Education. H.R. 325, a bill to create national standards, would require voluntary standards in math and science linked to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Would somebody please explain the point of creating voluntary standards? If states are allowed to ignore national standards, then why have them at all?

One more idiotic federal bureaucracy — one more black hole for millions of tax dollars. And for what? National standards nobody is required to follow. National standards which, as far as I can determine, will exist only so bureaucrats can feel good about themselves: There, we did it! We have national standards! And it only cost us 120 million dollars to create them! This “volunatary national standards” idea is almost — not quite, but almost — as hare-brained as publicly funded elections.

And liberals wonder why we think government is inept?

Every year, we pour yet more money down the black hole of education (check out this example of wasted education money from Polski3, or cruise through NYC Educator’s posts about Bloomberg’s brilliant ideas), and get no ROI. Yet, educrats and liberals whine about more money for education — they even have the hutzpah to squeal “Unfunded mandate!” and “Bush cut education!” while they grab all those billions of dollars with the other hand. Even teachers, who should have the common sense to wonder, at least once in a while, why they never see a penny of annual rising education funding, claim we need to pour more money into education.

For what? So we can continue to see nothing back? So educrats can continue dumbing down our kids and call it education?

Educrats are like four year-olds. Somebody needs to step in, slap them hard, and make them account for every penny they spend. When we were kids and asked for money, we were first required to explain exactly what we wanted the money for, and then we were asked what had happened to the money we’d been given the day before. Only if our answers were satisfactory were we given the money we requested.

Education should be funded in exactly the same way. Every government institution should be audited, especially education. There should be a trustee in every school district who says in response to any request for money: “Give me an itemized list of everything you want to spend the money on so I can review it.” And when he sees a million going to sensitivity training, he should axe it, then and there. No. You can’t have a cent to spend on this crap. Or when he sees five hundred thousand going to a brand new seminar room for administrators, he should axe it, then and there, and say, no, you can’t have a cent to spend on this crap.

And that goes for all levels of education, state universities as well.

Only when this kind of system is implemented and educrats are forced to be accountable for every penny they spend, and only when we start seeing a ROI on the exorbitant amount of tax monies we pour into education every year, and only when educrats stop whining about needing more money will I stop ranting about pouring money into the black hole of public education — and not a second before then.

They outdid themselves this week. This is easily one of the best yet.

I know I’ve said this before, but I’m going to say it again: Battlestar Galactica is not an allegory, and those who want to view it that way are going to be disappointed (well, have been by the New Caprica episodes), and are cheating themselves by seeing a complex drama through black-and-white glasses.

It’s the complexity and the utter lack of space opera-ness that makes BSG quality television — quality sci-fi, as far as that goes. BSG has matured, starting out more clearcut, but becoming richer and more multi-layered over time.

It’s also the complexity of the characters — including the Cylons, whose collectivism has been slowly eroding over the last season. First, we saw it with Number Eight (Boomer) and Number Six in Downloaded, when they murdered Number Three (D’Anna) to save Sam Anders, a human. We saw dissent increase during the Cylon occupation of New Caprica. Then, Number Three (D’Anna), who had been one of the collectivist Cylons, began to change as she started dreaming — first about Hera, now about the as yet unrevealed Cylon models. Number Three has developed a clear sense of destiny which the other Cylons don’t share, and in this week’s episode, makes it clear that she will do anything to fulfil that destiny.

Facing Galactica’s nuclear warheads, the Cylons decided to withdraw from the planet, but Number Three openly rebelled against the Cylon collective. In the Eye of Jupiter shrine, she shot Cavil (in self-defense).

It’s not surprising that when Number Three resurrected, Cavil discontinued the model — indefinitely, he said. Let’s hope this doesn’t mean they’re writing Lucy Lawless off the show.

But the increasing humanity of the Cylons was also counterbalanced this week. Just before the hiatus, Helo and Sharon found out that Hera was alive and on the Cylon ship — this after the trust between Adama and Sharon had been reestablished and Adama had reinstated her as an officer. Helo killed Sharon so she would download and be able to see her daughter, but she seems (unsurprisingly) to have turned against Adama and humanity — after initiating the movement to reconcile with humanity in Downloaded. It’s unclear, however, where her disgust will take her: This week, she stated that humans and Cylons should go their separate ways, but she could just as easily revert, particularly since she threatened to kill Hera, her daughter.

The Anders-Apollo standoff was settled by Apollo sending Dee to save Starbuck (and another Number Three returned to Galactica with Hera to reunite with Helo — though he doesn’t know it’s another Sharon). Apollo frakked up, looking first at Starbuck in front of Dee, who did not look very happy when he remembered her and ran up to hug her.

There was more Frank Herbert this week. Number Three saw a white, shimmering figure she recognized as one of the unrevealed models (”It’s you!”) in the shrine and when she touched it, died (of course, we didn’t see who the figure was, but I’m betting on Starbuck — read on). Starbuck seems to have painted the Eye of Jupiter symbol years before, and when Helo pointed it out, stated that she had a destiny. (Will Starbuck be the character to find Earth? Was Number Three the character that died?)

And Helo captured Baltar, who is now back on Galactica. Number Six told Baltar that Number Three wasn’t the chosen one, he was — and Baltar said that he knew. And I still think Baltar will be revealed as a Cylon, but I could be wrong.

Excellent episode — except that I’ll be extremely unhappy if Lucy Lawless is off the show. She’s one of the best characters on BSG. But it was one hell of an episode, without a doubt.

She never did answer that question, so here it is again (maybe if a whole bunch of us start asking, she’ll answer). Here it is. So Hillary, pro-abortion folks are always claiming that only very few abortions are performed as birth control. Yet, the data seem to contradict that:

Now, given that you are fond of saying that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” and given that there were 1.31 million abortions in the United States in 2000, and given that 91.8% of abortions are nothing more than birth control, and finally, given that fewer than 1% of abortions are a result of rape or incest, how do you plan to make abortion rare?

From Tim Blair:

John Howard has renamed the former Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. New title: the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

We can amend the Constitution.

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to here.

In addition to a few Jeffery Deaver and Kathy Reichs novels, I got (drum roll)

The Twinkies Cookbook (by Hostess). Uh, no, I haven’t looked at it yet. Uh, no, I don’t plan to in the near future.

The Demon in the Freezer (by Richard Preston, author of The Hot Zone). As soon as I start that onion soup, I plan to shut this laptop down and start reading it.

Virus books. Love virus books.

Like I needed another reason to like Jules Crittenden:

My newspaper has literally 60 percent fewer news reporters today than it had when I started there 14 years ago.

He knows the difference between less and fewer! Praise God and pass the Oxford English Dictionary!

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to here.

Over on Rory’s blog, I’m involved in a discussion about testing — rather, testing testing.

I have no problem with testing. I strongly approve of testing. Nor do I have a problem with test prep, as long as it doesn’t substitute for actually learning the material. But I’m getting ahead of myself, so let me take a step back.

We’re going to review believe and know. I may believe that intensive test prep will improve test scores (and I may be right), but I do not know that intensive test prep will improve scores. There’s a crucial difference between believing something and knowing something.

I believe that good test-taking strategies can affect scores, but I don’t believe that the effect is significant (as I said, rather extensively, here). However, I do not know that this is the case.

Here’s the problem, and the reason no empirical study has been done to disprove (or support) the effect of test-taking strategies. In order to do such a test, you have to have a control group and an experimental group (and you would additionally put the experimental group through a test-prep course). But to control for that all-important variable, knowledge, your two groups have to have more or less the same knowledge.

The only way to do that is to test them. And there is the problem: When you test them, are you seeing knowledge, test-taking strategies, or both — and if both, in what proportion? You see, you can’t even set up your two groups, because you can’t separate the two variables: knowledge and test-taking strategies.

And you must separate the two, since you need to test for the effects of one — and only one — of the two variables. So you’re stuck. And until somebody comes up with a way around this problem, no, I do not know that test prep courses will significantly improve test scores, even though I may believe it.

There. Is that clear?

If I had waited until now to go to the store instead of going an hour ago, I would only have had to put up with 18-degree weather (and howling, painfully cold wind) instead of 15-degree weather (and howling, painfully cold wind).

Radar’s Worst Nine Universities. A few excerpts:

Worst Party School: (Tie) California State University-Chico; San Diego State University

[ . . . ]

Fun Facts: The Forensics team had its 2006 season canceled after members were caught doing coke on school-sponsored trips.

[ . . . ]

Worst Trust-Fund-Baby College: Bennington College (VT)

With the exception of the converted barn that houses the school’s administrative offices, the quaintest thing about Bennington is its business model. With a high price tag, low graduation rate, and esoteric approach to academics, the college has become a mecca for entitled rich kids with artistic pretentions who reek of Pimm’s and patchouli. This year, the school ushered in 73 percent of its applicants. Next year, after dispensing with SAT requirements for incoming freshman, they may well admit the entire student body of Chico State. Instead of letter grades, students have the option of being subjected to “critiques” by their faculty and peers. Ahh, the rigors of pseudo-academia.

[ . . . ]

Notable Course: “SHHH! The Social Construction of Silence,” a class focused on breaking down the classification of silence as an absence of sound and “establishing it as a presence.” Or, the class where you sleep off your hangover.

[ . . . ]

Worst Ivy League University: Cornell University (NY)

[ . . . ]

Notable Course: Post-National Gastroidentities. An excerpt from the class description: “We will attempt to answer the question of how food, cuisine, and gastronomy play an important part both in the strategies to instrument normalcy through the imagination of the modern Nation-State, and the ways in which discourses affirming nation, race, ethnicity, hospitality, the universality of humanity, interact with each other fragmenting the national gastronomic field and undermining the unpolluted self-understanding of the modern Nation-State.”

Sometimes, being around academics is like being in the Stepford Wives. These people never seem to listen to themselves, or notice how utterly inconsistent they are.

From a mailing list I’m on (faculty member not identified for obvious reasons):

Subject: Sports welfare on campus
Date: 1/19/2007 12:33 PM

We need to use the Nick Saban scandal to mobilize our campuses and end giving free grades to athletes! We need to reclaim higher education as a place of learning!

Reclaim higher education as a place of learning? Note that the faculty member who wrote the above teaches the following course (from the faculty member’s website):

The Racism of the Founding Fathers: How the American Dream Perpetuates Slavery

I figured I’d spare you the course description. I find it interesting, however, that somebody who would teach something as idiotic as the above course would be concerned about “recaiming higher education as a place of learning.”

Also note that this faculty member had sent this to the same mailing list:

Subject: Does grade inflation exist?
Date: 10/12/2006 2:04 AM

As long as we use grades to perpetuate racist, white privileged “values” over minority values, our system will perpetuate the same. “Grade inflation” is nothing more than an attempt by privileged racists to keep minorities down!

And this points up the question that has always mystified me. The same faculty members who howl the loudest about athletic programs and grade scandals in athletic programs are invariably the same ones who insist that grade inflation doesn’t exist, pass off utter pap as substance in their classes, and hand out As like candy. I suppose it’s fine to hand out grades, as long as you don’t hand them out to athletes.

Anyway, who’d pay for that Three-headed Lesbian of Color Studies program if you didn’t have that athletic program?

In June, Rush Limbaugh (who is a diehard 24 fan, if you didn’t know) hosted a forum on 24 for the Heritage Foundation.

I paid it little mind, and just discovered that the “reality-based community” was all over it — more to the point, they took the fact that Rush has a crush on Chloe (anybody who listens knows that) and kissed her at the forum and have decided that the two are having an affair (see here, or here, or here

Don’t you people have something more important to worry about, like clipping your toenails? Sheesh.

I’m not much of a Hilary fan, but I never thought Hilary would sink to Debbie Schlussel’s sewer-scum level. Hillary’s team has questions about Obama’s Muslim background:

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?

This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama.

An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.

“He was a Muslim, but he concealed it,” the source said. “His opponents within the Democrats hope this will become a major issue in the campaign.”

My, my, what happened to diversity? And when Tits-On-A-Chair Schlussel was squealing about Obama’s middle hame, weren’t the leftists at HuffPo jeering about it? Let’s see . . . yup, they were.

So where are the objections now that Hilary’s doing it?

I don’t want to plagiarize Wyatt Earp’s Friday feature of the same name, but I just threw stuff at the TV, so here we go.

Dr. Neil Clark Warren

Need I explain?

Look at me! I’m a size 2!

I especially hate the way this 40 year-old woman giggles like a 14 year-old.

Les Stroud

Why is this idiot on television at all?

Roger Hazard and Tanya Memme

First, Hazard, who calls himself a “renaissance designer.” Right. This idiot paints over wallpaper. He’s a farce. And he loves to pain walls the color of puke or baby shit (he calls them “rich” colors).

Then, there’s Memme, who has been too much of a bimbo for several other, bimbo home-improvement shows — until she was matched with Hazard, the he-bimbo.

The problem is they come on my television. Die, both of you.

Paula Abdul

Shut up, stop screwing the contestants, check yourself into Betty Ford, and shut up.

In a very uncharacteristic move, Ann Althouse (who must be behind the curve on the Duke case) jumped the shark on the Kim Curtis case, though she’s been set straight many times by commenters. However, several of those commenters can’t seem to distinguish between an attendance policy and a participation grade — specifically, a participation grade that’s a full 25% of the course grade (just read through the comments).

I have no problems with an attendance policy, though I think it’s silly (we’re supposed to treat university students like adults, not little kids), and in large classes, it’s counterproductive. But I have serious problems with any participation grade, much less one that’s 25% of the class grade.

An attendance policy is objective. It’s Boolean: Either the student is there, or he is not. But a participation grade isn’t necessarily (or even usually) objective. There are participation grades that are really attendance policies (if you’re present, it counts). But usually, participation is one of those nebulous, subjective qualities that cannot be defined clearly.

Participation grades are wholly subjective.

When administrators (such as chairmen and deans) object to participation grades, they do so because the subjective nature of the grade opens the door to student appeals. Although I understand and sympathize with that particular objection, it isn’t the problem I have with participation grades.

But first, let’s define participation grades. A participation grade can be either quantitative or qualitative. A quantitative participation grade gives students credit for participating based on the amount of participation. A qualitative participation grade gives students credit or participating based on the quality of the participation.

I’ve known quite a few instructors who used quantitative participation grades, but I have never known one who actually kept track. These instructors relied on memory. So even though a quantitative participation grade could theoretically be objective, I have never known of a case in which it was.

I also question the point of a quantitative participation grade. We all know that “There are no stupid questions” is an education myth which we all uphold (yes, even I do). What is the point of rewarding a student for asking pointless, stupid questions, or making pointless, stupid remarks? Why does anyone feel that is a good idea?

But I object even more strenuously to qualitative participation grades. Such grades are wholly subjective. The instructor, and the instructor alone, judges the quality of participation. These grades open the door to flagrant abuse by biased instructors. Worse, there is no way for the instructor or his administration to prevent such abuse, since bias is often unconscious, not is there a way for a student to prove that his participation grade is the result of bias.

I don’t object to subjective grades. Grading writing is subjective, but the process can be safeguarded (that’s what rubrics, anchoring, and portfolios are for). But there is no way to safeguard a qualitative participation grade, and in my humble opinion, such grades should be prohibited by the university at large.

In the Kim Curtis case, however, participation is weighted as 25% of the class grade. Even if it is a quantitative grade (or even an attendance policy called a participation grade), giving it that much weight is indefensible. And the only reason for giving such a subjective criterion such weight is to give undue weight to one’s subjective judgment in assigning a final grade.

Grades aren’t about subjective judgments. Grades are assessments of how well students have learned the material. Even the most ethical, well-meaning faculty member cannot trust his subjective judgment to make that assessment, and should have some kind of safeguard in place. But only an instructor who clearly intends to give grades based on his personal bias would make a wholly subjective criterion like participation 25% of the class grade.

It shouldn’t be allowed. Period. And instructors who introduce subjective criteria into their grades need not only to be aware that those criteria are subjective, but also guard against their own biases in the process.

It’s called professional ethics.

Last night, I took the whole pot — with everything in it — and put it in the refrigerator. When I got up, I pulled it out and put it back on the simmer burner.

But that onion soup’s going to have to wait.

I don’t know how consistent the meat department inventory at Sam’s Club is, but here, they sell beef short ribs, but cut crosswise (across the ribs) in quarter-inch slices. I’ve never seen ribs cut this way, but they’re really good. Toss them under the broiler for a few minutes per side, add salt and pepper, and eat. Best of all, they’re great for stock — not only do you get bone, but it’s been sliced, so it releases the maximum. I already ate one package of them, so as soon as Sam’s opens this morning (10, I believe), I’m heading out there to buy another package, and make even more stock.

This is why they need me on juries:

HOLLIDAYSBURG — A man convicted of first-degree murder in the stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend’s 6-year-old son was spared the death penalty when jurors could not reach a decision.

Could not reach a decision? He murdered a 6 year-old kid. What’s to decide? Oh wait, there’s more:

Nathan Shaw, 27, of Tyrone, was also convicted of aggravated assault, rape, indecent assault and other charges in an attack on the boy’s mother on the day after Christmas in 2005.

Again, what’s to decide? I’ll bring the rope. Oh, you’ll love this:

Shaw told jurors Thursday that he was running down a hallway carrying a knife when he accidentally collided with young Jared and the knife plunged into the boy’s throat. He denied beating and choking the boy and said he grabbed the knife when he heard the woman arguing with an unknown man, who fled.

Judge, he ran into my knife! Really!

And as if that weren’t enough, we have this blithering idiot:

UNIVERSITY PARK — A student leader of the anti-sweatshop movement is facing prosecution and possible university sanctions in a vandalism case.

It’s not like the case is ambiguous. They have this idiot vandalizing doors on security camera tape — and this idiot “activist” admits it:

Guevara said a security camera mounted in or near Old Main apparently recorded her as part of the group.

But of course, being an “activist” type, the idiot is whining and trying to turn this into a “rights” issue:

But the student, Olivia Guevara, said Penn State is being overly harsh and may be attempting to scare student activists.

“I feel it’s a plan of intimidation by the university,” said Guevara, a graduate student in industrial relations. “If they shut up Olivia, then maybe they can shut the entire organization.”

A couple of years in Rockview should cure the problem. Lock the “activist” up.

Guevara is a leader in United Students Against Sweatshop Labor, one of two anti-sweatshop groups that have persistently lobbied the university. Penn State holds contracts with major vendors, such as Nike and Adidas, that make university-branded merchandise overseas.

Yeah, these are the idiots that also run around in clothes they bought at K-Mart (they can’t afford anything else), made in sweatshops. Idiots.

It’s snowing again.

And with that, I think I’ll heat up the chicken noodle soup and sign off.

(By the way, am I the only one who thinks that Kia commercial with those nitwits singing that Sound of Music song is incredibly stupid?)

is from Ace, er, actually no, LauraW blogging at AOSHQ:

Adding on this piece of news via Retired Geezer:

Lawrence Person writes “The attempt to require political bloggers to register as lobbyists previously reported by Slashdot has been stripped out of the lobbying reform bill. The vote was 55 to 43 to defeat the provision. All 48 Republicans, as well as 7 Democrats, voted against requiring bloggers to register; all 43 votes in favor of keeping the registration provision were by Democrats.”

This is what an *actual* chill wind of repression looks like, Lefties. And it is the Republicans who are standing up for your freedom of speech.

Indeed.

The whole house smells like beef stock . . .

My quick and dirty guide to statistics is here (and note the sources).

About two hours ago, I let the dogs in. Rather, I let in Dolly, the puppy. Minnie — our Queen Alpha Bitch of All Queen Alpha Bitches — wasn’t interested in coming in just yet.

So an hour ago, I figured it was time she came in, opened the door, and called her. No response. I called her again. No response. So I went outside.

At the time, it was in the mid-20s, but up here on the ridge, the wind was very strong (howling) and painfully cold. I believe I’ve mentioned before that Minnie — our Queen Alpha Bitch of All Queen Alpha Bitches — has always been scared of storms and quivers. I guess because it doesn’t thunderstorm here, she decided to downgrade her phobia, so now, if it drizzles, she quivers. If she hears the wind, she quivers. Sometimes for no perceptible reason at all, she quivers.

I found her, finally, down in the window well — quivering. She couldn’t climb out by herself, so I had to lift her out. She followed me indoors, but only after I had to inform her that no, trying to climb into the otherwindow well was not acceptable.

So now, she’s quivering in her corner. Ridiculous.

Concerned about the high cost of tuition? Wonder how you’ll pay for college? Well, if you live in Michigan, there’s an easy solution: Murder somebody (hat tip: Instapundit).

The Murray controversy has taken an interesting twist at D-Ed Reckoning, at least in the comments to this article, where Rory gives stats for Harvard (the stats are from InfoPlease).

By the way, I had written this as a comment, but it’s too long. So forgive the reported stats below (I probably would have put them in a nice, pretty table had I intended from the beginning to post this).

Harvard isn’t representative, for a number of reasons. First, it’s an Ivy League school so its restrictive in a number of ways. Second, it’s has a small enrollment, as universities go in the US. So let’s look at a couple of Big Ten schools that have more or less the same enrollment, Penn State and Indiana University. Sorry, I was too lazy to add up all the stats for the various campuses (a real pain in the butt for PSU, which has 20 campuses). These are the stats from the flagship campuses, at State College and Bloomington, respectively. Also be aware that these stats are most likely fudged before they’re reported.

PSU:

Enrolled
40,709
Percent Accepted
61%

Six-year graduation rate for final cohort of full-time, first-time bachelor’s (or equivalent) degree-seeking undergraduate students (adjusting for allowable exclusions)
83.80%

IU:

Enrolled
37,958
Percent Accepted
84%

Six-year graduation rate for final cohort of full-time, first-time bachelor’s (or equivalent) degree-seeking undergraduate students (adjusting for allowable exclusions)
71%

The two schools are pretty much the same size (PSU is slightly larger). But note that while PSU only accepts 61% of applicants, IU accepts 84%. Also note that while 83.8% of PSU students graduate in six years or fewer, only 71% of IU students do. So what’s the difference?

Of course, there are probably lots of things going on here — PSU is an ag/engineering school and IU is a humanities school, for one — and these are only two campuses, but here’s one difference: PSU does not have a preferential application process (that’s code for affirmative action quotas). IU does.

It’s no secret that minority students drop out at an alarming rate. It’s one of the most common sources of hand-wringing, moaning, pants-wetting, guilt-ridden meetings among university administrators, not to mention columns in the campus and local papers. But let’s talk common sense here. If you admit people who are not prepared, many of them are going to drop out.

The scandal isn’t that they drop out of the university. The scandal is that they are less well prepared by the primary and secondary schools. We at the university are stuck with what the school system turns out. We can’t do a lot to remedy the situation (despite all the moaning and whining about “how can we retain more minority students” one hears incessantly on campus).

And what’s mystifying is how anyone who is surprised that poorly prepared students drop out at a high rate managed to get through high school, much less get a PhD.

I was reading Maggie’s Farm Wednesday (as I do every day, and you should), and saw a link to an excellent article on simulations in American Thinker. Well, actually, the article is about the problem with global warming — climatological — simulations. It doesn’t offer a lot of information on simulations themselves, what they are, and how they work, and that’s why I’m writing this.

By the way, simulations are a real pain in the *ss to teach to undergrads. Trust me. Despite all the fuzzy math nonsense (or perhaps because of it), undergrads are very uncomfortable with uncertainty. But that’s another topic for another time.

Think of a (mathematical) function. The function takes values as input, processes the values, and spits out a value. A simulation is a lot like a function, with three crucial exceptions. First, a simulation has no real input values, but uses instead simulated input. Second, because the input is simulated, instead of running the simulation only once (as you would with a function), you have to run a simulation many times (iterations), then statistically analyze the output — the simulated output, calculated from the simulated input. Third, because the output of the simulation is simulated output and there are multiple outputs (because the simulation must be run many times), it must be statistically analyzed for reliability and the multiple results must be analyzed statistically.

A function is certain. A simulation is uncertain.

So how does a simulation simulate input values? Usually, by taking real data, analyzing it statistically to determine its frequency and distribution, then using statistics to generate input values using the same frequency and distribution. Note that in order for this to work, one must assume that the data are stable, that is, that the frequency and distribution of the data will not change over time.

The part of the simulation that corresponds to a function is known as the model. Obviously, only an accurate model can produce reliable results (output), and the more accurate the model, the more reliable the results.

Simulations can be powerful tools for making predictions, and are used in many fields, including business. However, because simulations use simulated (that is, not real) input and result in simulated (that is, not real) output, they have no evidentiary power — that is, you cannot use a simulation as evidence for anything, nor can you call the output of a simulation (real) data.

Let’s look at two different simulations.

The first is a business model. The owner of a bakery wants to see if increasing the number of ovens will increase his sales (and therefore, profits). The input of the simulation will be his sales data over the last year. The model will take into account the production per oven, fixed and variable costs, etc., and will generate the revenue and profit for several different numbers of ovens. The consultant can then statistically analyze the results for each number of ovens, and give the owner an answer.

Note that the model is based on hard data. Production per oven, fixed and variable costs, for example, are all absolute values. The model does not need to estimate anything, because all of the data are known.

Now let’s look at a climatological simulation, which generates the frequency and distribution of climatological data, and uses it to simulate input data (and will eventually output climatological data). Given the instability of the climate, this is problematic (if the data used to create the input are not stable, the simulation cannot be reliable). But the real problem — and difference from the business simulation — is in the model.

In the business model as I pointed out above, the data are all absolute, that is, known. In the climatological model, the data in the model are estimated, because climatology is a young science, and nobody is certain how, say, CO2 or water vapor affects the climate. A climatologist, given enough data, can make an educated guess. But it’s still estimated.

You can use estimated data in your model, but doing so inserts another layer of uncertainty into the simulation results. Let me explain.

Since the data in our model are estimated, we must use statistics to determine their validity. Since Mr. Lewis uses dice, I will as well, sticking for the sake of simplicity and clarity to rolling one die.

If you roll a die, the probability that you will roll, say, a 1 is 1/6. If you roll the die a second time, the probability that you will roll, say, a second 1 is 1/6 * 1/6, or 1/36. If you roll the die a third time, the probability that you will roll, say, a third 1 is 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6, or 1/216, and so forth.

Estimated variables in a simulation model must be treated in the same way as rolling a die, because each is uncertain, and each involves probability. Assuming that our climatologist is ethical, each of the estimated variables in his model should fall within the statistical norm of reliability, or be 95% reliable. Given the complexity of climatological models, hundreds of such estimated variables would be necessary, but for clarity’s sake, we will say the model includes only 50 such variables.

That means that the reliablility of the simulation model is 0.95^50 (0.95 raised to the fiftieth power), or 0.0769, or 7.7%. So even if we didn’t have the uncertainty of the simulated input (not to mention the additional uncertainty of assuming that the data are stable), even if there were no uncertainty in our ouputs themselves, our simulation results would only 7.7% reliable.

Climatological simulations cannot be taken very seriously. They can certainly never be taken as evidence or proof, as no simulation can be, because they are simulations. They aren’t real.

What disturbs me about all this global warming warfare is that the climatologists know this. They know that their models have no evidentiary power. Yet, they disingenuously claim the reverse. This isn’t science. It’s politics. It’s dishonest. And it’s a breach of professional ethics and integrity.

This whole global warming thing may be perfectly valid, of course. But simulations won’t tell us one way or the other.

The edusphere is in an uproar over Charles Murray’s education series in the WSJ this week (his first article is here, and his second, here). Rory fisks him here and here, Joanne Jacobs here, and Ken here. And while I largely agree with his detractors (so I’m not going to be critiquing him here), Joanne Jacobs said something that needs to be addressed:

Too many students go to four-year colleges without the intelligence to master college-level work or the motivation, writes Charles Murray in part 2 of his Opinion Journal series. Most would fare better learning job skills in a two-year college, he argues. This makes somewhat more sense than part 1 but I question his confidence that average people can’t benefit from higher education.

That’s not the point. Very few faculty members, at least in private, would disagree that there are many people in college who don’t belong there — though Murray goes off the rails when he suggests that intelligence is the reason (it’s one reason, but there are many). The high dropout rate is enough to demonstrate the truth of what Murray says. Many students drop out. Some drop out because, as Murray says, they don’t have the smarts. Some drop out because whatever their intelligence, they are poorly prepared by their secondary schools. Some drop out because they’d rather do something else. Of the second two groups, many return and get degrees, but not all.

I can’t really say whether they do or do not benefit — surely they do in some ways, but whether their lives are overall better for having gotten a university degree, I cannot say.

However, Murray does have one excellent point, though the “intelligence” spin he puts on it is inappropriate, and he demonstrates that he is part of the problem (I’ll get there). What, indeed, is wrong with vocational school? Unlike Murray, I would argue that those who want to learn trades are at least as valuable to the society than those who want to get university degrees, and in many cases, more so.

I have two friends I went to grad school with. Both exemplify my point.

The first is working for the federal government overseas and married a Bosnian refugee. He — the Bosnian husband — is a mechanic. When they were visiting ten years ago or so, the topic turned to moving back to the US, and he said, more or less, “What would I do?”

We tried to explain that the United States is not Europe. Jobs here are not tied to social status and class, but the market. We tried to explain that he could make a great deal of money here as a mechanic, especially because he would work in a niche market: German, Italian, and eastern European cars. He was incredulous.

Then there’s the second friend from grad school. Her husband is a handyman. He does everything. Over the years (when we were in Indiana, anyway), his services have been invaluable many times. We even threatened to kidnap him and bring him to Pennsylvania.

And note that neither of these men can be called unintelligent — indeed, intelligence has nothing to do with the choices they made in their lives.

How, exactly, are these two men, both of whom have valuable job skills and provide valuable services, less important to the society than, say, Cindy, who went to the university, got a BA in English, and is now washing dishes down the street and collecting food stamps because she has no valuable job skills? Why does going to a university carry more prestige than going to vocational school — or learning a valuable trade? How is that justified?

This idea that you have to have a university degree to get a job is nonsense. Joe doesn’t have to have a university degree to do what he wants to do: get a job in a shop and work on cars. And he doesn’t have to have a university degree to get a loan later and open his own shop.

Jim went to vocational school and now works for the department of defense as a contractor. Jim makes a great deal more money than I will ever see.

I have long disliked the elitism in our society about going to college. I understand where it started: Our parents wanted us to have a better life than they had, and the push to go to college snowballed. But it’s gotten to the point that, undeniably, universities are full of students who shouldn’t be there (for any one of several different reasons), and Murray is correct when he points out that this is resulting to some degree in dumbing down university courses (though it’s a bit more complex than Murray thinks, and depends on what department and what course).

Among my siblings, there is an inverse correlation between amount of education and income. ‘Nuff said there.

I would like to see respectability return to learning an honest trade, instead of the sneering commonplace today. Frankly, those who sneer show their own lack of class.

I’m not sure why, but my hosting service is responding veeeeeeery sloooooooowly (as in I have to wait almost five minutes after I post before I can do anything else). I just took the trash out. It’s just started to lightly snow and it’s really pretty right now — completely undisturbed.

One dog is snoring. The other is chasing rabbits (twitching and growling) in her sleep.

Ah, the oven’s hot. Time to start the beef stock.

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to here.

That’s today in one syllable.

Yuk.

More if I feel better.

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to here.

I didn’t know if I wanted to watch 24 this season (chill, chill). It got a little wacked out last season. But I TiVOd the four-hour premiere, the idea being that I’d watch, and decide whether I’d watch the whole season or not.

Silly me. Of course, I’m watching the whole season.

However, there are a couple of things that need to be said (IMHO). First, did we really need another bed-wetting, hand-wringing, “concerned” President Palmer? Sheesh, I had to put up with that guy the first two seasons, and now, I have to put up with his brother — who if anything, is worse — this season?

And his sister. Kill her soon. Slowly. Painfully. On air.

Are we really supposed to believe that the government had agreed to give Jack Bauer to a terrorist so he could murder him, only to get information against another terrorist? Come on. Seriously.

The vampire scene was pretty over the top, in an entertaining way. And why wouldn’t Jack Bauer bite out somebody’s throat? So was the scene where the precious, liberal hippie boy’s Muslim friend (”He’s not a terrorist!”) turned a gun on him. Unfortunately, the stupid little liberal didn’t get shot by his oppressed terrorist buddy, but only because Jack saved him (you wasted your time there, Jack; the stupid little SOB had it coming).

You can’t have everything. Hippie boy’s liberal daddy got killed, though. That’s something.

I’ve got to admit something, though. Jack’s not my favorite character.

Chloe is.

This season, no hiatus. It’s 24 every Sunday night. And speaking of Sunday nights and great TV, Battlestar Galactica resumes this Sunday.

One might think that liberals, as fond as they are of accusing others of hypocrisy, would pay close attention to their own words and actions, in order to avoid the same. But apparently not. In Marin County (thanks to Kathryn Jean Lopez), the crunchy granola, tree-hugging, tofu-munching rich set is vigorously opposing (are you ready for this?) Habitat for Humanity:

A growing legion of concerned neighbors in unincorporated Strawberry voiced fear Tuesday of increased traffic and decreased home values if a Habitat for Humanity housing development comes to the Eagle Rock neighborhood.

Note that they’re “concerned.” Of course. Liberals are always “concerned” (we had a colleague who was always going on at meetings about how “concerned” he was and what “concerns” he had, so we took water pistols to a meeting and told him up front every time he said that word we’d shoot him. He didn’t listen, and he got very wet, but he eventually got the point.)

Oh, but it gets better:

Echoing comments of several neighbors, Dealey described the entire project “out of character with our neighborhood.”

There we go, “out of character” with the neighborhood! Liberals have priorities like everybody else, and “being in character with the neighborhood” obviously trumps building houses for the less wealthy! Of course, if it were near somebody else’s neighborhood, and if it involved raising taxes (that the liberals will get out of paying) to build houses for these same people, these same liberals would be screaming about housing being a Constitutional right.

But it’s in their neighborhood, you see. That changes everything.

And I’m saving the best for last:

“To me it’s totally against the intentions of Habitat for Humanity as I know it,” he said before Tuesday’s meeting. “The intention always was to go into a blighted neighborhood and enhance it. The end result here is the opposite. It’s a lot of good intentions gone horribly wrong.”

The intention of Habitat for Humanity is to enhance neighborhoods? Really? Funny, since they do nothing but build houses for poor people it always seemed that their intention was to build houses for poor people and wait a minute, isn’t enhancing neighborhoods gentrification, and isn’t that something all good liberals oppose, like the San Francisco city planners who opposed every attempt to renovate the Armory until they sold it to a porn company (hat tip to North Dallas Forty)? But hey, what do I know? I’m not a liberal.

But the other thing — the really obnoxious thing — is here:

The intention always was to go into a blighted neighborhood and enhance it. The end result here is the opposite.

Oh indeed, it would ruin the neighborhood to let all those (shudder!) poor people in!

Liberals are just so cute. They’re so earnest, yet such fools.

Oh, but that’s not the only example in today’s blogosphere. Try this one, from the other nutjob liberal state, Massachusetts:

The young couple were struggling to get by on Martha’s Vineyard, living in a tent with their 2-year-old daughter, when they got the life-changing news: Through an affordable housing program, Andrea Dello Russo and Lucas Riordon had qualified to buy a small house on an acre of land — at a price far below the island’s soaring real estate values.

“It felt like winning the lottery,” said Riordon, who works as a carpenter and a fisherman .

A year and a half later, the couple’s dream of homeownership seems as far away as ever, blocked by 10 Chappaquiddick property owners, most of them seasonal residents of a neighborhood where three affordable homes are planned. Opponents of the new housing have gone to court, and have also taken a more direct tack: One couple, Cheryl and Robert Finkelstein , paid $287,900 last fall for an acre of land where one of the homes would have stood — seven times the $40,000 price a moderate-income family had agreed to pay for the lot.

Isn’t that nurturing and supportive of the disenfranchised, the marginalized, the disempowered! Buy the lot so their home can’t be built! How very compassionate! How exceedingly enlightened! How utterly liberal!

Oh, but it gets better:

Vineyard property owners who are fighting the new housing have come under intense criticism. On Saturday, a neighbor found a sign in the Finkelsteins’ driveway with the slogan, “Finkelstein Hall of Shame.”

Wait for it . . .

Finkelstein said she largely blames the hostile environment on Rappaport, who has called the opponents of affordable housing candidates for a “hall of shame.” She said she is treating the placement of the sign as a hate crime, and reported the incident to Edgartown police.

Hate crime! Hate crime! She’s oppressed! She’s disenfranchised! She’s disempowered! She’s marginalized! She’s a liberal and she whines!

But they’re not the only ones:

Chappaquiddick is not the only place on the Vineyard where lower-cost housing is meeting resistance. Construction of another group of 10 affordable homes in Edgartown, a development known as Jenney Lane, was delayed for more than two years by neighbors’ appeals, and an affordable condominium complex in Vineyard Haven, also challenged by nearby homeowners, is tied up in court.

Aren’t they cute? And they have the liberal buzzwords down, too:

They asserted that the three new homes would compromise their health and safety, and might also disrupt endangered species.

Oh well then! If it might harm your health — or far worse, endanger an earthworm or a roach, why, you’re morally bound to keep those awful people out! More power to you!

Cheryl Finkelstein said. “A particular kind of person chooses to live on an island off an island, in a wild area, and if you chose to live there, it’s because it’s the environment you wanted,” she said.

Obviously, some aren’t that “particular kind of person,” eh?

Moonbats are truly astounding creatures. Every zoo ought to have at least one.

The popular educrat myth is that education needs to focus on “higher-order thinking,” to the exclusion of developing actual knowledge. Looking at this purely from a “higher-order thinking” context demonstrates this to be a falsehood. Let’s choose an example from an undergraduate operations class, taken predominantly by freshmen. Here is the problem:

A customer requires during the next 4 months, respectively, 50, 65, 100, and 70 units of a commodity, and no backlogging is allowed (that is, the customer’s requirements must be met on time). Production costs are $5, $8, $4, and $7 per unit during these months. The storage cost from one month to the next is $2 per unit (assessed on ending inventory). It is estimated that each unit on hand at the end of month 4 can be sold for $6. Determine how to minimize the net cost incurred in meeting the demands for the next 4 months. Use named ranges, and list all named ranges and addresses, as well as all functions and formulas and their addresses.

The students are given a blank Excel file. They must analyze the problem, decide what kind of problem it is and therefore how best to solve it, extract the relevant information, construct a logical solution — all by reading the text of the problem — then use that information to set the problem up and solve it on the blank Excel worksheet.

So what kind of problem is it? Reading through the information in the problem, and the words chosen (”Determine how to minimize the net cost . . .”) reveals that this is an optimization, that is, a problem where the goal is to find the best solution given the data and a set of constraints.

We now know what the goal of the problem is. Now we need to extract the information:

• Orders over the next 4 months: 50, 65, 100, 70
• Production costs per unit, for the 4 months: 5, 8, 4, and 7
• Storage cost per unit from month to month: 2
• Price per unit, units on hand: 6

  Extracting the information means we also have to infer what the constraints are. Reading through the problem, we see nothing about budget (maximum total cost), or maximum units to produce, or a minimum total profit; in fact, we can infer only one constraint:

• Units produced must be greater than or equal to the number ordered, over each of the 4 months

In order to construct a logical solution, we need to know what kind of problem it is (we do), we need to have extracted all the information from the problem (we have), and we need to know what our goal is (we do). We also have to determine what calculations we need to perform, including what information we need as a result or solution. We have done neither of those things.

We know what our goal is: Minimize the net cost. What we don’t know is what data our solution needs to include. Sometimes, the problem will overtly state it; other times (like in this problem), it will not. To infer what our solution needs to be (since our problem does not overtly state it), we need to read through the problem, asking ourselves a question: What information do we need in order to solve the probem that isn’t given in the problem?

The number of units produced for each of the 4 months. That is the information we need to find.

And what calculations will we need to perform? Well, since our goal is to minimize the total net cost, we will have to calculate the total net cost. In order to do that, we have to multiply the number of units produced by the production cost per unit. But that’s not all. Scanning through the problem, we see that there are storage costs from month to month. Storage costs are for units produced in excess of the orders, and there’s another calculation. You get the idea.

The student’s worksheet should look something like this (click on the image to open a larger, legible one):

Looking at this problem in the context of “higher-order thinking” reveals that it is relatively complex, despite its mathematical simplicity. It’s a relatively complex problem that requires a linear, logical approach. But for the moment, let’s put that linear, logical approach on the back burner.

Fuzzy math proponents are forever claiming that what they term “rote memorization of algorithms” (or some similar sneering phrase) is not necessary because students can use their calculators. Calculators aren’t relevant here, but Excel — which we can think of as a super-calculator — is. And this problem demonstrates that the fuzzy math proponents are completely wrong.

Excel won’t do any of these things for you. Not one. Excel won’t analyze the problem, decide what kind of problem it is and therefore how best to solve it, extract the relevant information, construct a logical solution, or set the problem up and solve it on its own worksheet. The only tool that will do those things is the student’s brain, and if students don’t have the mathematical knowledge — all that “rote memorization of algorithms,” or some similar sneering phrase — they can’t solve the problem.

It’s as simple as that.

But there’s another, even more fundamental “higher-order thinking” reason the fuzzy math proponents are wrong. In order to solve the problem, students must approach it with a linear, logical process. Students who have gone through a “discovery-based” math program that eschews linearity and logic for Burger King math (”Have it your way!”) have been crippled. They do not have the cognitive tools other students have, and must either develop them quickly (unlikely) or fail (likely). I realize that letting Suzie cut up a piece of construction paper to determine (rather, estimate) the area of a circle may make teachers feel good about themselves, but Suzie will be mathematically retarded when she gets to the university.

Math hasn’t been taught since before Aristotle just for its own sake. Math has also been taught from the time of the Golden Age of Greece because it teaches those linear, logical thought processes that are so crucial in so many aspects of daily life — not to mention the university classroom.

Finally, fuzzy math proponents are wrong by teaching students that a problem can have many different solutions, teaching them to estimate instead of solve. There is only one solution — the correct solution — and all others are equally wrong. Students are often mystified when they turn in an often wildly incorrect solution and are first confronted with this grim reality. And they are mystified because their pre-university teachers have scratched them behind the ears and patted them on the heads like their little pet poodles and given them so-called partial credit for incorrect solutions.

You don’t get partial credit in the real world. You get fired if you can’t do the job, and do it quickly and efficiently. A student can use “what-if analysis” — plugging in numbers at random until coming up with what seems to be an ideal solution — but the student would get fired for it, only because of the gross inefficiency and wasted time and money involved. Sure, there may be several ways to solve — not estimate — a problem, but only a subset of those are efficient. Pedagogically, only a subset of those teach students the linear, logical thought processes they will need to succeed.

We aren’t here so much to teach students how to solve the problem as we are to teach students the quickest, most efficient route to solving the problem. If Suzie uses “what-if analysis,” she will get no credit. Allowing Suzie to cut up construction paper to estimate the area of a circle teaches Suzie that an estimation is as good as a correct solution, and that how she gets to the solution doesn’t matter, two falsehoods. Worse, “discovery-based learning” does not develop the linear, logical cognitive skills students must have if they are to succeed.

Even by the standards of fuzzy math proponents, their teaching methods are a disgrace.

The Clown Award will be given to whatever elected (or appointed) politician goes beyond the call of duty demonstrating a lack of knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. Today’s Clown Award goes to (wait while I open the envelope) Sheila Jackson-Lee, who holds the singular honor (now that McKinney is gone) of being the only member of Congress as stupid as Charlie Rangel!

And what has Sheila done to receive her little red clown nose? She wants to extend federal power over “hate crimes”! Or as Moonbattery puts it:

High-toned verbiage about how thou shalt not commit crimes “motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim” inevitably boils down in actual application to a simple principle: it may be bad to assault someone, but it’s worse to assault someone who is liable to vote Democrat.

Congratulations, Shirley! Keep it up, and we’ll send you your very own tinfoil hat to wear to Congress with your clown costume!

Jules Crittenden has moved.

Would somebody please tell me what Mel Martinez’s position on any issue has to do with his position as a fundraiser and a face for the Republican Party — or why these mouthbreathing paranoid morons have their panties in a wad?

Frakking idiots.

Comment or trackback, as long as you link to here.