Why All People Should Strive to Become Good Writers

Most people would probably agree that there is a strong correlation between someone’s composition skills and his or her ability to communicate ideas (at least on paper) to others. However, some writing averse souls might ask, “Why should I care about developing these capabilities if I work in a field, which does not require me to craft lengthy communiques or other documents?” In answer to this question, I believe that all individuals should attempt to become proficient writers because, by doing so, they might also be able to develop business-savvy traits related to the identification of key elements in a process, the ability to see the big picture, and the mastery of root cause analysis concepts. As such, even workers who rarely draft memos, much less essays or business plans, should take the time to learn the ins and outs of good composition.

Learning to “Separate the Wheat from the Chaff”

Good writers are usually adept at, to borrow an old cliche, “separating the wheat from the chaff.” They are able to identify and use relevant supporting information. Likewise, they can readily ascertain and remove data that is not germane to the topic. As it turns out, a person who wants to run an efficient enterprise needs to possess these same traits. After all, one must have a knack for zeroing in on the most productive elements of a process or product (and eliminating "waste") if he or she wants to get the most out of it. Therefore, individuals might be able to enhance their efficiency-related skills by working to improve their writing skills. I believe that these men and women sometimes can also use this training to help them strengthen their abilities to grasp big picture concepts.

Writing Skills and Big Picture Thinking

Usually, people who want to move up the corporate ladder need to be able to recognize and understand the meta-trends and meta-narratives, which are pertinent to their particular line of work. While the ability to ‘see the big picture’ is to some extent innate (eg. related to one’s I.Q.), some studies show that an individual can improve his or her abilities in this area by mastering writing-related concepts. To wit, if one is going to create a viable narrative, he or she needs to be able to craft a strong thesis and ensure that all of the components in the paper logically refer back to this main argument. In order to pull this feat off, the person will need to be able to think strategically—to be cognizant of how each piece fits within a larger pattern. In this way, someone who works to master the P’s and Q’s of good composition might, as a byproduct, also tend to see an improvement in his or her meta-analytical skills.

The Flip Side of the Coin – Root Cause Analysis

People who spend time developing their writing skills might also enhance their abilities to ascertain the root cause(s) of a phenomenon. In my experience, individuals who are adept at crafting strong essays are also good at zeroing in on a narrative’s underlying argument or idea. Translating this skill to the business world, they are able to identify a corporate infrastructure’s key weaknesses or ascertain the primary causes of a problem. Most readers would probably agree that companies covet men and women who possess this skill.

Summing Things Up

In short, I believe that all people, even ones who rarely have to create any type of document, might derive benefits from learning how to write well. That is because individuals who seek to master grammatical techniques can sometimes, as a byproduct of this process, strengthen their abilities to pinpoint the important elements in a process, improve their meta-analytical skills, and enhance their capabilities to identify the root cause(s) of a problem or issue. In this way, men and women who work hard to master composition-related concepts will not only become better communicators, they will also develop other important skills, which will likely improve their chances of moving up the corporate ladder.

#writing #learning #skills #business #education 

-- Anthony Matthew Hopper

Note: I originally published this post on LinkedIn. All citations are embedded as links within the text. 

Photo: The photograph is mine (taken on 12/20/2015)

2012 Commentary: Republican Sponsored Student Loan Bill is a Brilliant Political Move, but Not in Americans' Best Interests

Abstract: Today, the Republican led House passed a student loan rate extension bill that calls for eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund. It is a brilliant political move by the GOP; however, the decision is not in Americans' best interests.

Today the Republican led House of Representatives, by a vote of 215-195, approved legislation that, per Yahoo, "would extend the low 3.4 percent rate on government-subsidized student loans [for one year]." One controversial aspect of the bill is its requirement that the federal government eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a key feature of the Affordable Care Act. The money saved by this move will go towards offsetting "the $5.9 billion shortfall that comes with an extension of the low rate." The Republican Party's decision to fund the extension in this way is a politically savvy move. However, it does a disservice to Americans of all political persuasions.

The GOP's decision to sponsor a student loan bill that calls for the elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund is a brilliant political move. On the one hand, Republicans can appeal to the millions of Americans who have (or will soon incur) student loan debt by pointing to the fact that they voted to keep interest rates low. At the same time, the Republican bill is anathema to Democrats who are opposed to the elimination of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Democrats will likely use their influence to get the Senate to veto or table the bill, thereby risking the ire of people who have large amounts of student debt. As an ABC News article implies, Republicans will achieve a major victory if the extension expires on July 1 of this year without a new agreement, as Democrats will likely be blamed for allowing the rate to double to 6.8 percent.

While the Republican Party's move may be politically savvy, it goes against the interests of millions of Americans of both parties who have government subsidized loans. Many of these individuals are already struggling to pay down their student loan debt, and it will be even more difficult for them to achieve this goal if the rate doubles. At the same time, according to an article from a Fox News affiliate (Fox 34 News), many Americans are already under a lot of duress do to issues related to the weak economy. They do not need to deal with the added stress resulting from the uncertainty over whether or not student loan rates will be extended. Finally, these men and women are likely to spend less money over the next few months, as they wait and see what happens to student loan rates. Their decision to retrench might negatively impact the economy.

Both political parties claim that they are committed to keeping student loan rates at 3.4 percent, at least for another year. If that is the case, Republicans and Democrats should work together to craft a bill that is palatable to both sides. At the very least, the parties should agree to extend the current student loan rate until after the November elections. This is one issue that neither side should play politics with.

-- Anthony Hopper

#studentloans #Congress #Republicans #Democrats #Obama #GOP #politics

2012 Commentary: The Bullying of Children and Teens Goes Against Everything Americans Believe In

Abstract: As Americans, we take pride in the fact that our society upholds the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, school bullying strips its victims of these rights by damaging their self-esteem and by ostracizing them from others.

The news media has recently focused a lot of attention on the topic of bullying in schools. That coverage continued with an Associated Press article (posted on Yahoo) discussing the issue and praising a newspaper, The Sioux City Journal, for using the entire portion of its front page to posit an editorial calling "on the community to be pro-active in stopping bullying and urg[ing] members to learn more about the problem…" The press is right to condemn this practice; the bullying of K-12 students can have a lasting, negative impact on their social and professional lives.

As a youth growing up in the 1980s who had to endure years of constant bullying from classmates, I did not encounter many adults who seemed to worry about the practice. They viewed it as a natural part of childhood (especially if they had been bullies in their youth) and put the onus on the victims to find a way to keep other students from harassing them. This practice might indeed be beneficial to hierarchical, authoritarian societies or to cultures that espouse Social Darwinism; however, bullying has no place in U.S. schools.

Americans take pride in the fact that our society upholds the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While children and teenagers might not yet possess the maturity to exercise all of their freedoms (such as the right to buy alcohol), they nonetheless have just as much right to dignity and respect as any adult. Per the Center for American Progress, bullying runs counter to these principles. Its victims are robbed of their dignity; their basic rights are violated. Additionally, students whose self-esteem is damaged as a result of constant harassment from their peers are more likely to be unhappy and are more prone to committing suicide.

Perhaps worse, children and teenagers who are bullied in school often suffer long-term psychological impairment as a result of this harassment. The Harvard Mental Health Letter asserts that victims of bullying "find it hard to make friends, tend to be lonely and isolated, and suffer emotionally and socially." These youths are therefore denied the chance to develop some of the basic social skills and emotional traits that they will need if they want to take full advantage of the opportunities that this nation provides them.
The Sioux City Journal should be applauded for its decision to use its entire front page to protest school bullying. This practice does not have any place in America's schools. It strips its victims of their dignity and often hinders them from fully developing the skills necessary to achieve the American dream.

-- Anthony Hopper

#bullying #children #kids #teens #schools #opinion #rights

First Person: I Left My Career Behind

When I graduated from Roanoke College in 1996, I chose to accept a job with a small, mail order pharmacy. Over the next four years, I flirted with the idea of going back to school; however, although I would file applications to graduate schools from time to time, I did not seriously consider leaving my position with the company for several reasons. For one thing, while I may have grasped the concept of aging at an intellectual level, I did not have any experience with the subject. I felt as if I would stay young forever and thus did not feel any pressure to go back to school. At the same time, I did not know what vocation I wanted to pursue. Finally, I was concerned that I might not perform well in graduate school even though both my standardized test scores and undergraduate GPA were quite high; I worried that I did not have enough self-discipline to do the work required for my graduate courses.

Courtesy of Microsoft Office

My feelings on the subject began to change in December of 2000. One night, I was playing a word game with family and friends. I could usually come up with needed words at a lightning fast pace; however, on this night, it seemed as if my synapses were not firing as quickly as they should. Looking in the mirror, I also realized that other things were changing as well; I was losing hair and some fine wrinkles were forming on my hands. I realized for the first time that I was aging, and I felt that I needed to make a choice concerning whether or not to go back to school. I pondered the matter for several months and made my decision in late 2000. I still did not know whether or not I could produce graduate level work or even which field I might want to pursue a degree in. Regardless, I decided I wanted to become a college professor.

After researching the matter, I opted to resign from my job in May 2001 and enroll in a graduate level, Liberal Arts program. I felt that this decision allowed me to try out a number of fields to see which ones I enjoyed. I could also determine whether or not I was ready for graduate school. During this period, I lived at home, thereby saving money on rent and food. At the same time, I had some savings and used a portion of these funds to pay for the graduate courses. Finally, I worked part-time as a realtor. I did not make much money at this profession; however, I earned enough cash to pay for some of my schooling.

I ended up matriculating in the University of Virginia's graduate program in English with the goal of using that degree as a stepping stone to a Ph.D. (though not necessarily one in Literature). I obtained the M.A. degree but decided later on that I did not want to become a professor. In retrospect, perhaps I made the wrong decision when I left my job; however, at the time, I believed it was the correct choice.

-- Anthony Hopper

#careers #business #finance #personalfinance #personalinterest #education #school #graduateschool #English

Trickle Down Education Not Working

Last week, I noticed an article on Yahoo! that I thought was particularly thought provoking.  However, I didn't get a chance to mention it on the blog until now.  Frank Eltman writes the article, which is entitled, "Alan Alda Asks Scientists to Explain: What's Time?"  In it, Alda challenges scientists to come up with a way to explain the concept of time (eg. what is time, why does it only go forward, etc.) "...in terms a sixth grader could understand."  On  a more general level, Alda criticizes scientists for being unable or unwillingness to promulgate important scientific concepts to the masses.  I would go further and say that all academic professions need to do a better job of disseminating new information/discoveries/ideas to the general public.  The current trickle down educational scheme is not working.

Classroom-Courtesy of Microsoft Office

When I first matriculated in the M.A. in English program at UVA, I was shocked when I came to realize that much of what I learned in high school and college was erroneous. Worse, academic specialists had been aware of the errors for years but, as a group, had not done anything to dispel them.  Scholars had corresponded with each other via peer-reviewed journal articles and personal letters/emails; however, they did not attempt to communicate their findings to the general population, especially to young learners.  When asked, one professor admitted as much; he said something like, "The information will find its way down eventually."  Trickle down theory may work for some things, but not for education.

Granted, the average Joe or Jane can find almost anything on the  Internet.  A search for "time" on Google, Bing, or Yahoo! will probably yield an essay or article that provides a brief, accurate, and easily understandable synopsis of time (as concept, material force, etc.).  The problem lies in the fact that the everyday individual has no way to vet the results; how would he or she know which of the thousands (or millions) of sites has the correct information? 

Wikipedia has helped in this area, but it is not the entire answer.  The academic profession needs to work with laypeople to get this information to the masses.  As important, specialists in the various fields, along with local and federal agencies, need to do a better job of disseminating correct information to grade school and high school teachers.  In my opinion, state sponsored continuing education classes (for teacher re-certification), as they are currently constituted, have not been effective at this task.  If they were effective, the grade school age me would have learned that the brontosaurus never existed (the supposed brontosaurus fossil was actually an apatosaurus specimen). 

AI, Open Source Arguments All in One Article

This article in The Guardian is interesting for a number of reasons.  For one thing, it provides some further detail on the ongoing battle between scholars and companies regarding the open-sourcing of publications (making the journals free to the public as opposed to subscription based).  The article also hints at the AI capabilities of new data mining algorithms.  However, I was most interested (awestruck) by this sentence in the article, "The scale of new information in modern science is staggering: more than 1.5m scholarly articles are published every year and the volume of data doubles every three years."  Those are truly amazing numbers. 

eLife--A Paradigm Shift in Scholarly Publishing?

I was reviewing recent emails from Kurzweil.net, and one of them pointed me to this blog post on Nature.com: ‘eLife’ Journal Takes Another Step Forward.  I think the project is commendable.  In short, a number of large, well-funded research foundations, including "the US Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the UK Wellcome Trust and Germany’s Max Planck Society," have teamed up with (at least 175) scientists to publish an open-source journal.  This appears to be a serious endeavor given the players involved and the apparent time and effort everyone is putting into this one.  In fact, per the blog post, "its backers hope that the publication will eventually rival Nature and Science as a top-tier journal."

As I have noted in the past, I am in favor of making all scholarly publications open to public purview without charge.  If the eLife venture is successful, it might entail a paradigm shift which leads other journals to take the open source route.  Only time will tell.  Regardless, the eLife project is something to keep an eye on in the coming months/years.

Musings of a Blogger

I hope everyone is having a great day. While I have a few minutes, I thought I would posit a few random thoughts.

Over 100 Views in a Day

The good news is that my blog received 101 views yesterday; it is the first time I have ever had 100 or more visits in a day. The bad news--well, most of those visits were from SPAM bots. In fact, at least 80-90 of the visitors were probably not human. Oh well, at least I had a moment to enjoy the number before the reality set in (that my visitors were not "real people").

Oh, How I Wish Academic Journals Were Open Source

If I ever strike it rich, I will likely donate to several causes, including funding scholarships for my undergraduate institution (Roanoke College), sending money to the SENS Foundation (research on aging and age related diseases), and creating a trust that buys academic journals and provides them free of charge for public viewing.

In the late 1800s and into the 1900s (if I recall, perhaps someone with a better knowledge of American history will help me out on this one), philanthropists donated millions of dollars to help fund the building of new libraries. One of their chief goals (and the most altruistic one) was to provide everyone (well, almost everyone), whatever their station in life, with access to knowledge. The philanthropists believed that people needed ready access to information/knowledge if they were to be able to carry out their duties as citizens.

In the same way, I think it is vital that the public have ready access to the information stored in peer reviewed journals. They may sometimes need to review this information if they are going to make a well-reasoned decision on an issue which is dear to them or which impacts their lives. Granted, many people may never even make use of this information; however, some individuals will utilize it, especially when they believe that none of the advocates for a certain issue are being straightforward with them. People might also want to review information in a journal when they procure unbiased information from news sources and they are unsure which Internet blogs or sites to trust.

How about a fictional real world example: I want to determine whether the local natural gas company's fracking plans will provide a net benefit to my community. I listen to both sides discuss the issue at the local town council meeting. The gas company uses an article in a peer reviewed journal to support its case that fracking is safe and environmentally friendly; I want to back-check the company's claims, so I look-up the article on-line, and learn that it would cost me $65.00 to purchase it--ouch. I check with my local library, but it doesn't carry a subscription to that article and doesn't have the resources to procure a copy for me. I ask the gas company, but I get nowhere....Hmm, wouldn't life be better (and wouldn't it be easier for me to fulfill my role as a good citizen) if the journal was open source.

Clip Art courtesy of Microsoft Office.

Part 2 of It Is Kind of Odd How Technology Both Enslaves Us and Sets Us Free

Happy Easter All.  I've finally managed to get around to writing the second part to my technology piece...

While technology enhances or enlarges our freedom(s), it can also diminish our autonomy.

1) As several posters have mentioned--see comments under "(Part 1 of) Its Kind of Odd How Technology Both Enslaves..."--we seem to be wedded to some of our gadgets.  How many times have our friends, family, co-workers, or even ourselves said that we can't live without our television, smartphone, computer, tablet, etc.  Heck, even if we haven't said, it is still probably true for many of us.  However, just because we can't "live without" a piece of technology does not necessarily imply that our autonomy has been limited.  A company may "not be able to function" without a certain employee, but we don't necessarily think that the company is a slave to the worker.

The added worry for many of us (who want to be as autonomous as possible) is not just that we can't live without technology; it is that we adjust our lives to fit our technology instead of vice verse.  Instead of using a piece of technology as a tool, which is wholly devoted to serving us, we instead change our habits, views, etc. to fit that technology.  As an example, we change our methods of emailing, writing, etc. to conform to whatever new technologies (ie. a new version of Word) that come along.  If a new IT system demands that we learn a new series of processes, we do it.

In other words, instead of forcing technology to fit within our proscribed routines; we change our routines to fit the technology.

2) We have lost control over our basic information.  I'm sure that my name, address, dob, favorite foods, etc. are floating out on the Web somewhere.  More importantly, I didn't put (some of) them on the Web, nor did I request that it be done.  Nevertheless, it is out there somewhere on the Web for everyone to see.  More importantly, I am not alone; most of us are probably in the same boat.  Whether we care about it or not (I personally am not overly worried about it), we have lost control of our information.  We do not necessarily determine what people see and when they see it.  The growth of the Internet and social media have set us free in many ways; however, it does come with a cost--some loss of privacy and personal control of information.

3) We have always had to worry about "big brother" to some extent.  Even before the invention of cameras, I'm sure that people had to "watch their backs" to make sure that no one was spying on them.  With the invention of cameras, video cameras, recording devices, etc., it became easier for governments/people/companies, etc. to keep an eye on people (either in public or in private).  The advent of things like Google Maps has made that task much easier.  Granted, this might not be a bad thing in some cases; I'm sure that city managers the world over love having the ability to look down on homes from on high to see if they can spot any city-code violations.  Nonetheless, the more advanced this type of technology becomes, the greater its potential for invading our privacy and otherwise denying us the freedom to dictate who sees/hears our private moments.

Clip Art Courtesy of Microsoft Office.

It Is Kind of Odd How Technology Both Enslaves Us and Sets Us Free

To me, it seems that the technological revolution enslaves us and provides us with more freedoms at the same time.  I realize that is perhaps an odd thought, but...

Part 1: Technology Sets Us Free

Increases Our Freedom

We have so many more choices now...We can surf the Web (and millions of websites), play video games, watch movies, etc.

Chains - Courtesy of Microsoft Office

We are no longer connected to a certain personality or environment/cutlure.  We can now choose to spend our time in a variety of different, virtual environments.  We can choose to be whoever we want to be in these virtual realms.  In a way, we have the chance to start over each time we enter a new virtual realm; we don't carry any "baggage" or past when we first sign-up to World of Warcraft, or a chatroom, or some other virtual place.

We are not connected to a place.  By that, I mean we don't have to be in a certain physical location to take part in things like watching movies, listening to music, etc.  We can do it anywhere and with almost any device (assuming it is electronic).

Time has lost its meaning...Oh, we still grow old, but we do not live in a linear environment anymore...Granted, that was partially true before the advent of the technology revolution, but it has become much more the case now.

We have much more control over our interactions with other people.  We can use traditional methods to talk, such as via mail, calling, talking in person; however, we can now talk by Internet, text, etc.  And we now have much more control over the time, place, environment, background, etc.

Some of us have, or will have, more freedom at work.  Growing numbers of people telecommute; they no longer have to travel to a physical location each day to work (or go to school).  The percentages will likely grow over the next few decades.

Part 2: Why Amateurs Are Sometimes Better than Experts at Conveying Information

Continued...


Most of the people I have met are dynamic individuals who adhere to complex philosophies and value systems.  Further, they are not static beings; rather, they change and grow with the seasons (or sometimes over a period of days or weeks).  These men and women also sometimes posit questions which have no easy answers--perhaps no final answer at all.  They may ask, "What is the meaning of life?"; "Is my view of morality correct or are their deficiencies to it?"; "Does God exist?"; etc.  People often need (and utilize) information and guidance from external sources in order to help them answer these very personal, yet nuanced and byzantine questions.

At the same time, most human beings live in a complex world.  In order to thrive personally, spiritually, financially, they have to engage in a wide variety of tasks that require knowledge of economics, philosophy, ethics, sociology, math, and history to name only a few disciplines.  Even if they do not have to directly rely on information from these fields, they will have to use skills that derive from these areas of study.  For instance, if I will use logic, statistics, or a similar technique to help me assay differences in insurance policies or home loans, or to decide whether to fold or raise in a poker game.  I might rely on local history to help me craft a solution to a long-standing, land dispute issue or to renovate a Victorian era house.  I will certainly need to draw on some skills to help me navigate customer disputes or employee problems, etc.  In these and in other ways all of us (or at least most of us), utilize information or methods from academic fields of study to help us successfully navigate around or through the events, problems, and conundrums which comprise our daily lives.

Even if we could somehow get through our daily lives without having to face any complex tasks or problems, most of us (at least those living in democratic nations) would still need to draw upon a diverse, nuanced set of skills and knowledge areas when we take on the role of voter.  In our current age, a person who vets candidates using reason and care, as opposed to, for instance, choosing a favorite based on his/her hairstyle or height), needs to have at least a modicum of understanding of economics, history, philosophy, and a hundred other fields.  In fact, they might sometimes have to possess a solid understanding of a field in order to assess a candidate's positions in relation to those posited by his/her opponents.

Added to these issues, the world seems to be changing faster than ever.  I don't just mean in terms of population or demographics.  In modern societies at least, our political, cultural, economic, and philosophical/ethical norms change at a speed that would be utterly amazing to someone living just a century or two ago (perhaps to individuals living just a few decades ago).  It seems that new ideas today become cliched tomorrow.  The same rapid change also impacts our material lives--everything from the foods we eat to the cars we drive, to the phones we use, change rapidly.  How long have smartphones been the "in thing?"

In short, most people, including myself, ask difficult questions which do not have any easy answers.  They live in complex worlds where they have to interact with people from a variety of different cultures.  They have to confront and solve complex problems on a daily basis.  They are also tasked with choosing the best leaders for their respective countries--a difficult thing to do.  Finally, they have to accomplish all of these things in a world that is constantly on the move.  In order to succeed in this environment, they need to draw upon a wide range of skills--sometimes on short notice.  The notion that experts can satisfy the needs of this population is antiquated.  Sometimes they can; however, more often than not, amateurs--people like you and me--are best able to help their fellow men and women to access the skills and information necessary to thrive in today's world.  There are several reasons why amateurs excel at this task.

Conclusion coming soon....

Part 1: Why Amateurs Are Sometimes Better than Experts at Conveying Information

Part 1: 

In my first blog post, "About My Blog-My First Post," I discussed some of my reasons for creating this blog and posited some of the things/benefits I hoped to convey to my readership.  I would like to touch on that subject again; however, the attempt here is to cover new ground by answering a simple question: "Why comment on subjects when I do not have an expertise in those fields?"

On first glance, this appears to be a valid question.  I have a dearth of knowledge about politics, philosophy, etc. in comparison to the information that an expert in the subject might possess.  As such, some of my posts will perhaps contain amateurish or even incorrect views.  Additionally, an expert in a field will almost certainly be able to posit more in depth views on topics that are in his/her field of study.  Some would say, "These people often devote their lives to studying these topics, so they should be the ones who are most capable at conveying this information to the populace?"  In some cases, the answer to this question is yes; however, I would bet that in many more instances, the experts on a topic are the least able to transmit their learned knowledge to the public.  The reasons are evident.

The experts on a topic also tend to be specialists.  They may know a lot about one specific area of a field; however, they know very little about the other areas.  Sometimes, their lack of a more general understanding of their field may incorrectly bias their viewpoints about the field in general.  Either way, most of their papers, lectures, and scholarly focus on a narrow topic area.  Additionally, their writings are intended for other experts in the field and contain jargon, arcane symbolism, etc.  How many busy "average Joe's and Janes" have the time to spend to puzzle through dozens or even hundreds of these texts to build a generalized knowledge of a specific topic, such as free will, evolution, culture, etc.?  Besides, most of these journals are inaccessible to the "average person" anyway, unless one happens to live near a library that contains a sizable journal collection or wants to pay significant sums for individual submissions.

Even when an expert in the field does create a book or an article that is intended for the general public, the work does succeed in disseminating information to the general populace.  One could point to a number of reasons for this failure, including poor marketing, length, etc.  However, in my opinion, these books fail to enlighten many non-academicians because they are boring reads.  The writers text based comments are not entertaining.  Just as importantly, expert authors often fail to connect with their readership because they can't build any empathetic connections.  As such, large numbers of potential readers will choose not to read a book on history, culture, philosophy, etc. because they cannot "connect with it."  Other people, who do read the book, will not remember much of what they read because it will not "stick in their minds." As a case in point, how many people have read Stephen Hawkings' A Brief History of Time?

Perhaps worse is when a tiny passage from an academic publication or a high brow book written for the masses is taken out of context (thereby skewing its original meaning and purpose) and disseminated throughout the population.  Few people questions the erratum because only a tiny percentage of them read any part of the original text.  They sometimes readily accept its message because it comes from an expert on the subject.  This event occurs so often that it's not worth listing any specific examples, we can all think of numerous ones.

This situation would (to quote an oft used cliche) "be fine and dandy" if most people living outside of academia were automatons, or specialists who didn't need to concern themselves with anything that didn't involve their jobs or families.  It would also be fine if our cultural, economic, and political situations were simple, and we lived in societies whose rules, values, etc. changed slowly if at all.  However, this is not the case.

To be continued....

From a Graduate Student Consumer's Perspective--Views on Graduate Education in the U.S.

I have had the opportunity to matriculate in graduate courses in several areas of study and have spoken to post-baccalaureates at numerous institutions.  As such, I feel that the views expressed in this post have some merit.  In keeping with the my blog's mission statement, consider this post to be a rough draft of my thoughts--a quick fleshing out of my opinions as opposed to a carefully crafted, highly edited paper.

A large percentage of graduate students cheat.  From what I have noticed, a large percentage of graduate students cheat.  This problem (if we'd like to call it a problem) is not confined to traditionally competitive programs like law and business, it is prevalent in all graduate fields.  Ironically, graduate students cheat even when they do not fear failure, ie. in programs that will not flunk even the worst students.  While individual graduate students might posit any of a variety of reasons for committing these acts, the high prevalence of cheating is due to a permissive culture.  Many students do not believe that cheating is an unethical behavior.

Universities need to standardize their graduate grading systems.  University administrators need to request individual schools and programs to adopt the same grading system for graduate students.  Grades may not be important for some firms, ie. universities looking to fill academic seats; however, most companies would like a graduate student's grades to reflect that individual's abilities and work ethic.  It is difficult for a corporation to put any faith in this variable when post-graduate scoring systems vary widely between programs within a particular school, much less between graduate schools within a university (or between universities).  For the same reasons that researchers use standardized measures assay an issue, businesses would like to universities to use a standard grading system for all graduate students.

Some program heads may cry foul if the university moves towards standardizing grading systems at its institution.  They will argue that this action limits their program's/school's autonomy.  However, in my opinion, the benefits outweigh any disadvantages when it comes to creating standardized grading systems for graduate students.

Graduate programs should use 3.0 as a minimum.  Obviously, schools want to promulgate the view (sometimes an illusion) that their graduate students are a step up from undergraduates.  At the same time, they want to promote the belief that graduate education is more rigorous and serious than its undergraduate counterpart.  Sometimes these hypotheses are accurate and sometimes they are no more than myths.  For instance, I can point to numerous instances in which a school's undergraduates are more intellectually capable than their graduate peers.

Be that as it may, it does not behoove graduate programs to enforce a policy of "No C's" or "2 C's and you are out."  This policy causes a host of problems, especially for programs who are averse to flunking out any students.  Perhaps most insidious are the instances in which professors feel it necessary to pass a student with a 'B,' even though that individual did absolutely nothing to deserve it.  I would suggest that programs instead adopt a 3.0 minimum.  It would allow professors more leeway in handing out grades which are commensurate with a student's abilities/efforts as well as allowing programs to differentiate between high achievers, middle-of-the road performers, and weak students.

The E-Publishing Revolution Is Advantageous both for Readers and for Writers

This entry is a copy of my response to a post a on 'Official Blog of Joslyn Corvis,' which is titled, "Is an E-Book Still a Book?”  The author of that post is Joslyn Corvis.  You can find it here: http://gothicgenie.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/is-an-e-book-still-a-book/#comment-40

Speaking as a reader (of books), I prefer electronic literature, including e-books, over their paper based predecessors.  For one thing, a collection of e-novellas don't take up much space and they are quite portable.  It is much easier to transport a 1-2 pound notepad computer library from place to place than it is to move a collection of books around.  Additionally, assuming an individual maintains his/her on-line service or download the necessary computer updates, that person won't have to worry about misplacing books or losing them in a fire, flood, or due to wear and tear.  One caveat, as e-publishing becomes the norm, it will become more difficult for people to save money via buying second-hand books.  This will be problematic for some; however, I think the pros outweigh the cons on this issue.

While the shift to e-publishing will make it easier for people like myself to carry and store volumes, that is not the chief reason that I prefer electronic media.  Rather, by using the computer keypad, I can easily locate specific passages or topics when perusing an e-book, which compares against the vast amounts of time I have to spend flitting from page to page to find specific passages in paper-bound copies.  As such, it is much easier and efficient for me (and for anyone) to research papers, projects, and other things using electronic media.  That being said, you and other authors might also eventually come to prefer e-publishing.

I can posit numerous reasons why an author would prefer an e-publishing platform over a paper-based one; however, for the sake of brevity, I will only mention one reason here.  Namely, an e-book writer has more freedom to create a dynamic, interactive literary piece.  With a book, the author's views/visions are limited by the linear, one-dimensional nature of the medium.  In an e-book, the author can include videos in the novel, or he/she can create multiple endings (letting the reader choose the ending).  Perhaps most importantly, the writer can easily go back and update the volume if new information comes to light.  This is particularly important for science fiction writers, as many of their views/ideas/background which are feasible/logical this year will become outdated/impossible in a few years (given the pace of scientific progress).  

Have Colleges Lost the Ability to Transmit Information Effectively?

Below, I have copied a response that I posited yesterday in the blog, Learning with 'e's.  I was commenting on a blog post by Steve Wheeler (the host of Learning with 'e's), titled, "Conversation as curriculum."  Steve's article contends that current pedagogical theories and methods used by most college and university professors is outdated.  You can find his article here:
http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2011/12/conversation-as-curriculum.html


My responses to blog posts are usually both brief and ad hoc.  In other words, I write what comes to mind and don't edit for content/grammar.  As such, this response suffers/benefits from even less editing than usual.

Great post...I agree with the hypothesis you put forward.  Perhaps I can provide an additional perspective on the issue, having recently graduated (in May) with a M.S. in Healthcare Administration.

Not only is the pedagogical content outdated, many of the memes/theories do not adequately describe the "world."  Further, these theories, even when valuable, have limited "visions."  They therefore create students with provincial mindsets who are not prepared for the dynamic, "real world." 

Worse, most professors use antiquated methods, such as one-dimensional (purely text based) PowerPoint presentations and lectures, to transfer information to their students.  These techniques may have worked wonders in educating students for an Industrial based culture but are inadequate in helping people develop their critical thinking skills.  In other words, graduate programs (at least the ones I have seen) do an excellent job of creating students who can follow directions and please teachers but do an inadequate job of training individuals to rapidly assess the pros and cons a decision (ie. the stakeholders involved, the environment that constrains the choice, the ramifications of the decision, etc.).

Finally, our society is transforming from one that is dependent on materials and manufacturing to one that relies on technology and knowledge.  As such it behooves universities to train their students to utilize the technologies to the fullest advantage and to understand how the Internet and computers will (and are) transform ethics, behaviors, values, etc.  Sadly, most graduate and undergraduate programs (that I have experience with) do not achieve this goal.  Rather, they are still thinking in 2-D when the world revolves in 3-D.

Digitized Literature and the Changes that May Come

I made these comments in response to a blog post on More Red Ink, entitled, "More on the Death of Science Fiction."  The blog article is located at:   
http://martyhalpern.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-on-death-of-science-fiction.html

Anyway, I felt my response was worth posting on my blog.

Personally, I think that the death of certain types of science fiction writing, ie. dime novels, pulp fiction magazines, is mainly due to changes in culture and technology.  I think another shift is occurring now as literature becomes digitized.  Will future readers, who grew up with a Kindle in one hand and a notepad in the other, be content with perusing through pages upon pages of text?  Perhaps they will demand that e-stories become more interactive, with numerous, imbedded videos (perhaps even interactive videos that allow the viewer to control some aspect of their denouement).

Anthony