Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
First you complain that I linked to a blog post, and then you regurgitate the entire post here (presumably thinking that there were a whole host of board regulars who, like yourself, become addled by working those link thingies that keep cropping up in hypertext documents). Were you dropped on your head a lot as an infant?

The poster, Mark Kleiman, is a professor of public policy at UCLA. Which is to say that his credentials to say shit about educational policy are substantially greater than yours. Slagging what he says simply because he's published it on a blog instead of printing it on paper is just dumb. (Congratulations: You walked into that one.) Compared to your ouevre here on this particular subject, his post compares favorably.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't you see? Follow the logical steps:

Because (1) sociologists have no standards,

(2) Kleiman, who holds a Ph.D. from the Kennedy School at Harvard, can be ignored, as can

Why are you so focused on Kleiman? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't most of the post not written by Kleiman? Most of it was some teacher whose was about to leave their job in the south’s opinion. What actual text in this blog was Kleiman’s? If it is not Kleiman’s prose does that mean it is OK to “Slag” on them because they are not Harvard trained professors?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(3) the many academic articles considering the effects of teachers unions on education.

It's a neat trick. But if your idee fixe is that teachers unions are bad, then it takes something like this magic attack on sociologists to dispel inconvenient realities.

I didn’t get that from the Blog did you. The poster seems to conclude that any conclusion that shows a positie connection between teacher’s unions and education is tenuous at best…

“In case it wasn't entirely clear: the chain of reasoning "Massachusetts has teachers' unions, and its students score better than students from Georgia, which mostly doesn't" is snark, not social science. “

“I checked with my colleague Meredith Phillips, who reports that to her knowledge (and Meredith sees all, knows all) the right sort of statistical study, controlling for the relevant background variables, has never been done.”

“As long as we're trying for social science, as opposed to snark, let's note that "unionization" probably isn't the right independent variable; what we want is some measure of the difficulty of firing a teacher, which might be measured in hours of effort by the principal or months of elaspsed time between the beginning and the end of the firing process.

In a quick conversation today, Meredith suggested that a convincing study would have to look at districts where the independent variable had changed for some exogenous reason; otherwise you'd be left with the suspicion that easy-fire districts and hard-fire districts varied on some unmeasured dimension that also correlated with school performance. For example, if districts where the teachers hate the principals, and vice versa, tend to evolve union contracts or administrative procedures to protect teachers from arbitrary firing, and if such districts also tend to have badly-performing schools, then protections will turn out to correlate with poor performance, even if there is no actual causal link.

All this illustrates an under-appreciated point: good policy-relevant social science is really, really hard, and ought to be left to really, really smart people such as Meredith. That's why I mostly confine myself to policy analysis and snark, which are much easier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You seemed so set on defending the professionalism and academic credentials of this blog posting. But the following quotes don’t seem to indicate that is more of a rant than anything else:

“the superintendent and school board threaten any teacher that tries to move out of her obedient servile position under their feet.”

“I don't have any problem saying that I would prefer a solution that wouldn't terminally piss off the teachers' unions, because the unions help Democrats win elections and I like it when Democrats win elections. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to support programs the unions dislike if they're necessary to the program of improving public education; only that, other things equal, I'd rather find a modus vivendi than start a civil war.

How about Mickey? Will he 'fess up to the fact that, like Bill Bennett, he'd much rather smash the unions than improve the schools? And that he demands that Democratic candidates diss the unions for the same reason I demand that Republican candidates diss the TV preachers: because it's a good way to break up what could otherwise be a winning electoral coalition?

You omitted the part where he said his post was heavy on snark. Smart academics talk like that sometimes.

I happen to know Kleiman second-hand. A couple of good friends worked for him as researchers back in the day. So I don't think of him as some dude with a blog.

Why would you ask me what part of the post I found interesting, only to ignore my response and instead talk about something else? Trying to be obnoxious, or just stumbling into it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why are you so focused on Kleiman?

Because your initial response was to trash him as some schmo with a blog. I'm just responding to you. You should try it sometime.

I didn’t get that from the Blog did you. The poster seems to conclude that any conclusion that shows a positie connection between teacher’s unions and education is tenuous at best . . . .

Since I (and you, apparently) last read that post, Kleiman has added a third "update" below what you quoted, suggesting that there is additional research out there on "the effect of unionization, as opposed to barriers to firing, on student performance," and suggesting that the results are ambiguous.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you take any sociology classes in college? Have you had much contact with sociology professors? The deparment was a joke at both my undergraduate and graduate schools. My experience with public policy programs is rather limited (but if my ex girlfriend's experience is anything to go on it is similar to sociology departments), but I have a wide ranging experience with sociology professors. If the entire profession is tainted then it wouldn't be that hard for an idiot to pass through a peer review process? My experience has been that many are Marxists and socialists. This guy I sat with on the panel kept telling me how great Castro was (he told me to read this book, "Pirates: Axis of Hope" and that all the stuff I heard about Cuba was misinformation sent out by the "oligarchy". I guess that means that Less is now working for the Oligarchy. My guess would be that if you are actually a rational person that believes in rigorous academic standards, and you were a sociology professor, you wouldn�t get tenured at most universities. In other words, if you are a tenured sociology professor at most universities you have demonstrated to your collegues that you have no academic standards.

One of my best friends is a sociologist. I'm pretty sure that you would approve of everything that she went through at Texas A&M to get tenure.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You omitted the part where he said his post was heavy on snark. Smart academics talk like that sometimes.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Slagging what he says simply because he's published it on a blog instead of printing it on paper is just dumb. (Congratulations: You walked into that one.) Compared to your ouevre here on this particular subject, his post compares favorably.

So I can’t criticize the fact that it was written on a blog, because it was written by a professor so it just as easily could have been an academic paper. Yet on the other hand, I can criticize its emotional and intellectually lacking comments because he already warned us in the beginning that is was “snarky”. Do you think he would put this “snark” in an academic paper?

I guess snarky means it is illogical, emotional, and poorly argued. Such snarkiness is typical of a blog, and that is why I discount them so much. And because it was “Snarky” it was a poorly presented argument that failed in the purpose you were trying to use it for; trying to argue there was a connection between strong academic performance and unions.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of the many, many U.S. houses to experience damage from tides/flooding/waves, which were unaffected by the rise in ocean levels?

Look at the upside. Had Tropical Storm Allyson not destroyed a good hunk of the Medical Center, I wouldn't have had all those drinks with the insurance company representing GA who used to come down here a lot.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because your initial response was to trash him as some schmo with a blog. I'm just responding to you. You should try it sometime.

Check your facts cowboy. You were the first to mention his name. I just critisized the entire blog posting you linked to. Then you mocked my criticism, because I critisized a blog postig that was submitted by such a credentialed expert on education (even though he has a tendency towards Snark).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since I (and you, apparently) last read that post, Kleiman has added a third "update" below what you quoted, suggesting that there is additional research out there on "the effect of unionization, as opposed to barriers to firing, on student performance," and suggesting that the results are ambiguous.

Well that is no fun. If the results are ambiguous, how are we supposed to argue about it? I think you should post to the blog and complain.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So I can’t criticize the fact that it was written on a blog, because it was written by a professor so it just as easily could have been an academic paper.

Criticizing something for being published on a blog is like criticizing information for coming in an e-mail. You can do it if you want, but it's stupid. Greg Mankiw and Richard Posner -- to take just two examples -- have blogs. Both of them are smarter than you and me.

Yet on the other hand, I can criticize its emotional and intellectually lacking comments because he already warned us in the beginning that is was “snarky”. Do you think he would put this “snark” in an academic paper?

It's no news flash that many people right less formally on blogs than on academic papers. (Though not Posner.) But I don't understand why you think this somehow discredits the substance of what they say.

I guess snarky means it is illogical, emotional, and poorly argued. Such snarkiness is typical of a blog, and that is why I discount them so much. And because it was “Snarky” it was a poorly presented argument that failed in the purpose you were trying to use it for; trying to argue there was a connection between strong academic performance and unions.

I frequently link to blog posts that discuss the sorts of sources that you seem to find reputable -- major newspapers, the academic press, etc -- and you frequently dismiss these posts without looking at where the information came from. I used to think that you did this to be funny, but now I think you're just lazy, and are more interesting in arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As long as the moon is still up there, the sea is going to go up and down every day.

Uh oh (spree: non peer reviewed blog citing online article in peer reviewed Nature, because I have to register for Nature)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
So I can�t criticize the fact that it was written on a blog, because it was written by a professor so it just as easily could have been an academic paper. Yet on the other hand, I can criticize its emotional and intellectually lacking comments because he already warned us in the beginning that is was �snarky�. Do you think he would put this �snark� in an academic paper?

I work in academia. I can categorically say yes, snark ends up in academic papers on a very regular basis.

And the academicians I work with are hard science types.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Check your facts cowboy. You were the first to mention his name. I just critisized the entire blog posting you linked to.

Actually, I believe you mentioned his name first in this little screed:

• Well that is the last time I ever check out a link you post. Why did you think this post had any credibility (or think it was it was something people should look at, or that it in any way supported the assertion that Unions help schools) before it contained any actual evidence? What possible value could this link have without the supporting evidence? Why waste anyone's time with it? I keep thinking that at some point you might link to something that is credible, relevant or at least partially coherent. You are like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Not only was it a Blog, but a Blog whose posters are less analytical and rational than most idiots who usually post to Blogs. However, I did like Kleimans summary of the general content of Blogs:

Because you suggested that the post had no credibility, I then told you who Kleiman was.

I will admit to setting you up by linking to a blogger with impeccable academic credentials, suspecting that you would pay no attention to who he was and dismiss him out of hand. You obliged.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
One of my best friends is a sociologist. I'm pretty sure that you would approve of everything that she went through at Texas A&M to get tenure.

Really? Have you met her collegues from Texas A&M? Have you met her collegues from other schools? What was your impression of them? Did you find them to be discplined academics that were committed to research and study, or did you find them to be ideologues that were more concerned with pushing a political agenda? In other words, did they seem to be the type of people that spent most if their time in the library, or who spent most of their time speaking at rallys? Has she ever talked to you about the general reputation of sociology departments at universities and what she thinks about that reputation?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
Really? Have you met her collegues from Texas A&M? Have you met her collegues from other schools? What was your impression of them? Did you find them to be discplined academics that were committed to research and study, or did you find them to be ideologues that were more concerned with pushing a political agenda? In other words, did they seem to be the type of people that spent most if their time in the library, or who spent most of their time speaking at rallys? Has she ever talked to you about the general reputation of sociology departments at universities and what she thinks about that reputation?

Yes. I've spent a lot of time with her colleagues and I never get to see her because of how much time she spends on her research. This is her current project. I don't know what the political agenda of figuring out how kids learn about the circulatory system of the bat in an online and realspace environment but I'm sure you could find one.

Nor do I know what the political agenda of an ethnography research of online community (though there are a lot of sociologists that will argue that it's impossible to do research on online communities because they're not "real". I say bullshit, and would point to this online community). Is she liberal, yes. She's my friend, most of my friends are liberal. Are her colleagues liberal? Some are, some aren't. Most of the colleagues that I've met were in backyard barbeques and at her wedding, so they tended to be friends. I presume that wasn't the full spectrum of the department.

I do know that she has at least six or seven kids every year in her Family and Marriage class that get irritated that it's not a how to class. But it's A&M. Aggies are a funny people (and boy howdy is that just a data point just begging to be analyzed).

I don't know too much about other institutions, but her dissertation was looking at Supreme Court cases in the 1820 through the 1920s in Missouri and Kansas and seeing what the difference with regard to race, class and gender were in a slave state versus a free state that were pretty similar otherwise.

Like I said, I work in academia. Her department seems no more or less fucked up than a cardiology department in a medical school. The political issues seem to be at the departmental level rather than the national or even local level. Her tenure process was a very stressful event for her.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, I believe you mentioned his name first in this little screed:

• Well that is the last time I ever check out a link you post. Why did you think this post had any credibility (or think it was it was something people should look at, or that it in any way supported the assertion that Unions help schools) before it contained any actual evidence? What possible value could this link have without the supporting evidence? Why waste anyone's time with it? I keep thinking that at some point you might link to something that is credible, relevant or at least partially coherent. You are like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. Not only was it a Blog, but a Blog whose posters are less analytical and rational than most idiots who usually post to Blogs. However, I did like Kleimans summary of the general content of Blogs:

Man you can be dishonest sometimes. Why didn't you just post the sentence where I referred to him. Oh wait, then it would be obvious that I just mentioned Kleiman to praise him for his critique of blogging in general.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Because you suggested that the post had no credibility, I then told you who Kleiman was.

Nice try. You suggested that it was ridiculous that I crisis the blog because it was posted by such a credentialed man. In fact you suggested that I "walked right into it" because it was a professor's post that could have been in an academic paper, not just some typical blog. I simply pointed out that his credentials had nothing to do with how good his argument is (that is why I referenced fallacies) and the content (mainly the quotes of the southern teacher not his) were really bad. Clearly not worthy of an academic paper, not even worthy of most blogs. You later admitted the content lacking when you agreed that it contained "snark", thereby also admitting that it was not worthy of a paper, and also admitting that I had not walked into anything.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I will admit to setting you up by linking to a blogger with impeccable academic credentials, suspecting that you would pay no attention to who he was and dismiss him out of hand. You obliged.

Impeccable credentials? There you go again. I don't know anything else about the guy, all I know is that you pointed to a rambling blog that stating nothing. You even just admitted that the evidence you were basing your whole argument on was ambiguous at best. It did not bring up anything relevant about the discussion of the firing of bad teachers (except for maybe that there is no evidence that shows a connection between unions and academic performance).

I started off this whole discussion by stating that the not only did the blog you link to in no way support the assertion you were making (that there was a connection between unions and academic performance) but to read the blog was a waste of time because he contained nothing substantive, just ramblings. You just admitted that the blog in no way supported your position, which you claimed it did when you linked to it, and you also admitted that it was not a serious contribution to the discussion on education (it was just snarky). I was right on both counts and you were wrong.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I work in academia. I can categorically say yes, snark ends up in academic papers on a very regular basis.

And the academicians I work with are hard science types.

What relevent contribution to the discussion on education do you think that blog posted by Ty provided? Do you think that blog supported his assertion that there is a direct connection between unions and positive academic performance? Do you think I was wrong to ridicule it as not serious or persuasive?