Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Program on the CBC this evening called "Canadian, SO?"

Dec 4, 2004 10:43AM PST

featuring some of the people from the States who were taken in by the inhabitants of a number of small communities around Gander, Newfoundland when their aircraft were redirected on 9/11.

Gander, while it has a large airport and is a former Canadian and US Forces airbase is a very small community with not a lot of room for overnight guests. People were taken by school bus to nearby communities and given a place to sleep, bedding from the homes of the inhabitants (there being no big stores in the area), food, various necessities tooth-brush, baby-formula, a whole list that I wish I could recall in order to put it down here. The laundry and towels were taken away every day and laundered in their homes and brought back fresh every afternoon. The bus driver was quoted by a lovely woman from Ohio in a very creditable Newfie accent as introducing himself as "Me names Moody, but dat's me name an' not me nature." On the drive to a community 45 miles away which was taking the passengers in, they passed a moose on the roadside and when the passengers remarked on it he stopped, backed up the bus and let people photograph and video the moose and its companion which emerged a few minutes later and then asked, "Has ye all had a good look? Well we'll be gettin aahn (on) den." Newfoundland is a place of rich and vibrant culture. A lot of people there are musicians as they were everywhere 80 or more years ago, and the locals entertained the visitors with folk songs and other entertainment.

The conclusion of the participants in the program was that Canadian cultural values are closely related to small town values of connectedness and participation, and of helping one another.

The reason I write all this is to try to counter Kidpeat's posting of an unpleasant and inaccurate Chicago Sun-Times editorial that is so utterly unlike the Canadians I've met, and the Canadians other Americans have met and been moved to write and speak about. I don't take Speakeasy's rather hard-nosed participants to be representative of the US, or even of the Republican party, please don't confuse Canada's not acting like the 51st state with detestation or despising. It's not that. It's a different and not malign point of view. Just remember that only 53 million out of 280 million voted to support the current administration. That's roughly 25%, although, of course, probably 80 million aren't voters.

Like it or not they (we) are your best friends and are more likely to understand and to help than anyone anywhere.

Rob Boyter

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: Hardnosed attitude
Dec 5, 2004 10:44AM PST

>"Each side has it's partisan web site (Drudge Report and Move On)."

Click over to http://www.factcheck.org/ and run a search for "drudge", then run a search for "moveon".

>"re: media bias and watching/listening/reading to one's biased favorites exclusively."

http://www.pbs.org/tuckercarlson/unfiltered/unfiltered_43.html

What journalism needs is some affirmative action. It's about time the Washington press corps looked like America. From here on out, news organizations ought to set aside 51 percent of all new jobs for the ultimate in under-represented groups: ordinary people from the red states: Culturally conservative Evangelicals who oppose gay marriage, have questions about evolution, and think abortion is murder. People who went to community college, approve of stay-at-home mothers, like bass fishing and keep at least one gun at home. People with views that, in newsrooms across the country, are currently considered beyond the pale.

Will this happen? Of course not. Red state voters are too unfashionable to qualify for their own affirmative action program. And that's too bad. It's hard to know what America is thinking if you never meet most of the people who live there.


Mark

- Collapse -
Sorry Mark but there is nothing more over-represented on the
Dec 6, 2004 11:32AM PST

Network news than the Right, whether in it's religious guise or not. Please see the subsequent post addressed to Angeline for why. It begins "With regard to A. the anti-Clinton...".

The myth of the poor put upon, under represented Right is just that. A Myth. I never see my views represented on the news, not by anyone. And certainly not by Begala, Carrville and others who I am told are there to represent me.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Yeah, cuz Dan Rather's so conservative.
Dec 6, 2004 12:34PM PST

Here's an article that mentions "the Big Three"--i.e. Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20030903.asp

"While his advocacy is not as outrageous as either Dan Rather or Peter Jennings, Brokaw has celebrated the welfare state, lobbied for liberal campaign finance reform, praised an ex-Soviet dictator, and exhibited a partisan double standard on scandals."

It goes on to give examples.

Here's another article which cites a December 2000 Gallup Poll:

http://www.tvrundown.com/polbroka.htm

"About half (51%) of the Americans surveyed believed that there was a bias towards one political party in the way news organizations report the news. By a two-to-one margin, those who felt there was a bias said it favored the Democrats. Gallup had found roughly the same thing in 1995."

Oh, and let's not forget that Walter Cronkite has also admitted to being a Liberal.

Yup, the Right is way over-represented in Network news.

But don't believe me, run your own searches on the names of each of the Big Three and the word "bias", and see how many hits say liberal vs conservative.

Just because they may not be your views doesn't necessarily mean that they are conservative views - Mark

- Collapse -
You are quoting highly conservative and partisan sources
Dec 7, 2004 8:17AM PST

and they are spouting their opinions or in the case of the Gallup poll people are reporting what they have been told for the last 35 years (that there is a great liberal media conspiracy), not even handed evaluation of an issue. They don't count as evidence IMO except for the other side of the argument i.e. that the Right has been predominant since the time of Jimmy Carter.

While I don't agree with the current perception that all media in the United States is a left wing conspiracy, I was in fact talking about the Pundits and Experts that you see on television being interviewed or asked for comment by Rather, Jennings Brokaw et al. and who are far more influential, in my opinion. I'm talking about people from the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation all of which are well funded explicitly Conservative institutions.

I'd be willing to swap your list of liberals in media, excluding the newsreaders, for my list of Right Wing Ideologues and Mouthpieces, I bet I win by nearly 2 to 1.

I'll start: Irving Kristol, George Gilder, Michael Novak, William Tucker, Philip Terzian, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Reagan, Cal Thomas, Alan Keyes, Dan Scarborough, Ann Coulter, Mary Matalon, Bruce Fein, Ralph Reed, William F Buckley, Norman Podhoretz, Bill O'Reilly, Elliott Abrams, Kate O'Beirne, that's 23 to start covering TV, Radio, and Print.

The trouble with the Right is that for them there is no middle ground, either you're a good conservative or you're the Anti-Christ. Personally I'd put newsreaders in the middle or neutral ground. If they speak about welfare as an existing entity, they are accused of "lauding the welfare state".

I think its rubbish.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Even if they're biased, that doesn't make them wrong.
Dec 7, 2004 9:56AM PST

>"they are spouting their opinions"

The Media Research piece gave examples to back up their opinion.

>"in the case of the Gallup poll people are reporting what they have been told for the last 35 years"

Now who's spouting (unsubstantiated) opinions?

>"I was in fact talking about the Pundits and Experts... I'm talking about people from the American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation all of which are well funded explicitly Conservative institutions."

OK. But that wasn't what you said in your previous post, nor was it what I was talking about in mine.

>"I'd be willing to swap your list of liberals in media, excluding the newsreaders"

But the specific topic of discussion was the Right being over-represented on the Network news, not Liberals (or Conservatives) in the media in general, and certainly not excluding the newsreaders.

>"that's 23 to start covering TV, Radio, and Print."

Yes, and how many of them are on ABC, CBS and/or NBC News?

>"The trouble with the Right is that for them there is no middle ground"

And, of course, there are no left-wing extremists.

Mark

- Collapse -
Re: Sorry Mark but there is nothing more over-represented on
Dec 6, 2004 1:27PM PST

The right isn't necessarily under representative, but the idea that CBS, NBC, ABC haven't been right along with Hollywood in overall leaning left is nonsense.

Now Fox News is just as much right, sure. CNN was once more left, I don't see it very much now. MSNBC was more left too. I freely confess to if I turn on an all news network it's normally Fox. I still often turn on the 6 oclock local news then the network national news of either CBS or NBC. CBS has lost almost all objectivity, even before the memo embarrasment. Of course, almost no news attempts objectivity anymore, they all slant the answers by the questions they ask.

Of course, part of the problem is where each person draws the line. People I see as slightly left, you may see as definate right. People I see as slightly right, Ed O. probably sees as hard left. And so forth.

And everyone can't wait to label everyone else can they?

As far as your views represented and you've not seen anyone that did in the news, I suspect a lot of people disagree as much as they agree with the "movers and shakers" of any group.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
With regard to A. the anti-Clinton lobby and B. the Heinz ad
Dec 6, 2004 11:23AM PST

I reccommend David Brock's book "The Republican Noise Machine...". Among other things he was the one attacking Clinton both before and after the nomination. He knows whereof he speaks (and he has repented his earlier misdeeds).

There was also an article in the September 2004 Harpers by Lewis Lapham called tentacles of Rage on funding for thinktanks the top four of which: The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Insitution and the Cato Institiute have total funding topping 100 Million Dollars. The next closes is the Hudson Insititute whose funding is lesss than half (7.8 Million, about 43%) of the Cato Institute's. The Heritage, American Enterprise, Hoover and Cato Insitutes are inescapable whenever there is a political, social, or economic issue on television. They are the premier spin commentators and you will often see two or even three being asked to comment in the same issue on the same network news show, and I don't mean Fox. There may be one semi Democrat asked to join, I will not say a liberal because they are virtually invisible on televison news these years. Now I know that Lapham will probably draw the forum's ire but when you consider how many prominent Neo-Cons and Right wingers there are, perhaps you could allow us just one. And that's just the non-religious component, God knows what the funding for the Religious Right totals, and they're inescapable on the news too.

All of this stuff didn't happen by accident. It was planned and prepared for. The Coservatives didn't like being marginalized first by the Depression (their economic ideas) and then by McCarthyism's excesses their fear of Communism and the usefulness of calling someone a Communist to marginalize them) and they went out and created a well funded lobby for their pet issues. I think if the "Good Guys" are going to make a resurgence we're going to have to fund the same sorts of institutions to sustain and bring along liberal talents and promote liberal values which are the core of this my (and your)country.

Rob Boyter

Begala, et al are Democrats, not liberals.

- Collapse -
Re: With regard to A. the anti-Clinton lobby and B. the Hein
Dec 6, 2004 10:56PM PST

Wow! $100 Million in PRIVATE funding between the three? Perhaps you should wonder why the liberal think tanks don't get such funds. Probably because they don't usually put forth their policies because they know most people wouldn't go for them if they were honest about them. Better to pour millions into MoveOn.org and Emily's List and suck millions more from union workers to shape the political landscape.

Aw c'mon, if I didn't know better I would think you ARE Paul Begala posting under an alias. You share his rather pathetic bent for demeaning political opponents with bad humor.

Just an observation, but you seem to have a problem with the religious Rob. Not all of the religious are on the right.

If you don't see as many hard core liberals on TV anymore, perhaps it is because TPTB are finally seeing past their elitist notion of knowing better what the American people want, and are actually giving it to us. Even Fox regularly gives the podium to such leftists as David Corn and VanDenheuval (sp?) so it's not like FNC viewers are only hearing a POV they agree with. But THANKFULLY, gone are the days when the women's POV meant NOW, black meant NAACP and Jesse Jackson, etc. Viewers have choices now, and the viewership numbers of the "establishment" media have been declining steadily. Maybe TPTB are finally waking up to the fact that their views might just not be shared by even a large minority, let alone a majority of the viewing public.

- Collapse -
Sounds like that vast, right wing conspiracy is even worse
Dec 8, 2004 2:36AM PST

than Hillary said it is! Thanks for the warning! I'll be on the lookout for the black helicopters tonight!

- Collapse -
Personally I don't see it as a conspiracy. Its just politic
Dec 9, 2004 9:38PM PST

s, and the Republicans have been doing it better than the Democrats since the early 70's. Democrats need to challenge the untruths spread by the Republicans and their allies, and define themselves and their beliefs and intentions clearly instead of letting the Republicans define them with half truths, innuendo and outright falsehood.

My contention here is that there is no vast liberal conspiracy or even much influence in the media and I have the names to back it up. My last count earlier in this thread was 41, but some have been contested and apparently I made a mistake on one. So without changing the count I offer Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Barbara Amiel and George Jonas. So far no one has posted a countervaling list of liberals, not one name.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Re: Personally I don't see it as a conspiracy. Its just pol
Dec 11, 2004 4:01AM PST
So far no one has posted a countervaling list of liberals, not one name.

Because to do so would be meaningless as we could go on listmaking all day.

The problem is not a lack or surplus of pundits on either side of the aisle, it is the near monopoly of opinion in the controlling sectors of the major media outlets. The big three nightly news anchors were both anchor and managing editors of their *news* programs, and all three slant in varying degrees to the left. Thankfully, MRC has done compilations demonstrating their bias: Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather. The bent of the editorial boards of major newspapers are also solidly on the left as in unabashadly confirmed each election season as they issue forth their candidate endorsements. There is no way such a biased editorial force can escape from inserting bias into the reporting. Take for instance something that might seem innocuous to you, but is telling to liberal media critics -- how many times has the war been referred to as Bush's war? I don't recall ever hearing "Clinton's war in Bosnia". That is but one example.

When you add to the mix the even farther left bias of those inhabiting academia (I am but a rare exception in my line of work) -- including those teaching journalism I might add -- and you have a pretty good liberal lock.

I happened to pick up a newsletter at a college library I was using the other day. In it was a letter from the Prez of the college explaining class section reductions. Apparently rather than the couple percent growth of enrollment, there had been twice that in enrollment losses leading to section closing and course cancellations. Among the reasons given were the "continuing recession and job losses" -- oh really? We're in a recession?? Job additions might not be what we all would like but there have been jobs added lately, and the pace of that appears to be picking up. Another reason was the floundering tech sector, which I could swear hearing has been experiencing a bit of a burst lately.

You really are in denial if you believe there is some sort of conservative monopoly on outlets for getting one's message out Rob.
- Collapse -
I assume that there's a delay in the upturn in the economy
Dec 11, 2004 9:31AM PST

actually reaching the coal-face of the ability of people to pay for higher education. This is always assuming that the increase in employment isn't representative of more McJobs and more greeters at WalMart.

I can understand that it must feel peculiar being a conservative in largely liberal academia. Have you any thoughts on why academia is a liberal bastion? Given that higher education goes to the wealthier segment of society on the whole, and it has been my perception that that segment of society tends to be conservative in its politics, why would academics not to a degree reflect this? I am just asking for information purposes. No agenda.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Re: I assume that there's a delay in the upturn in the econo
Dec 12, 2004 12:50AM PST

You really should educate yourself more about the FACTS Rob. As one who holds how ignorant Americans are about the world, you display much the same about your native country.

Don't believe Edwards' nonsense about hardworking students not being able to afford college. It is utter nonsense, although I would say that those that deserve SCHOLARships often cannot find them as much funding is dispensed without consideration for academic promise or performance any more, and hasn't been for quite some time.

While the advertised tuitions almost everywhere continue to go up, the actual out of pocket expense to the student has not gone up nearly as much. Judging from the cars my students drive, the clothes they wear, and their often apparent lack of concern for paying tuition to repeat a course they fail for lack of effort, the "poor college student" may exist, but is not very pervasive.

Our economy has been out of official recession since November 2001. I didn't pull that date out of my hat, it is that "officially" accepted by economists across the political spectrum. Are there some sectors or regions with economic difficulties, yes. But the US is outperforming every industrialized nation including yours in terms of economic growth, and has been for some time: G7 Countries GDP Growth 2002-2005 {Incidentally the "Canada leads G7" title is misleading as clearly the US economy is outperforming Canada's ... I assume they are talking about "leading" the G7 combined average.}

It is a flat out lie to use the language "continuing recession" in a November 2004 publication (and yes, I checked the date to make sure I wasn't reading something from November 2001). There is always a lag in students choosing a particular field and employment prospects in that field, but this was an overall enrollment decline in a time of economic upturn.

As to why academia is decidedly left, I think it comes down to the talkers vs. the doers. Look through a college catalog for the course offerings and things that one can spend tuition dollars to get a degree in. Very few can actually make a living being activists, studying minorities or "women's issues" and the like. Most conservatives are not interested in talking about political theory (making sure the correct label is applied), political correctness, etc., they are more interested in actually doing something. IOW, we really only need so many talkers in society, the rest of us actually have to produce something of value, and far too few college programs actually prepare a student for that anymore.

In my field I don't talk politics or inject politics into my classes as there is no place for it IMO in a science or math class. I have become increasingly disenchanted with the quality of students and the desire of the administration to keep their $$ in the seats at all cost regardless of the quality of the education. If I had to suffer the politics of a campus history, journalism or liberal arts department I would probably have never gone into teaching at all, or been gone a long time ago. But my college friends I reunited with recently after many years of sparse contact were not only not surprised, but informed me they always knew I would go into teaching because I have a certain knack for it. Gee, I guess one could say God wants me to teach Wink, because if you look at the salaries in the field I left (pharmaceuticals) or those my graduate field qualify me for, I would be far richer elsewhere, and probably could add notoriety to that.

You do realize that your stereotype of the rich being conservative is in direct opposition of the "ignorant sheep" that are relatively poor conservatives in the red states don't you?

- Collapse -
You know I WAS trying to be conciliatory with this post.
Dec 12, 2004 3:19AM PST

Trying not to be partisan, and to ask legitimate unloaded questions. Apparently you are unwilling to accept that, or unable to recognize it.

When I went to university, before affirmative action, the cost of school was steep and the vast majority of students were from secure middle class families. That doesn't mean Dad worked on the line at GM for a decent wage, because even then it would have been a stretch. I knew a few kids like that and they had to work like hell the whole year through to afford residence and books and a few records. Mostly we were the children of Executives. My cousins dad was a VP for the Nielsen organization, my dad worked for Martin Aircraft before and after they changed their name.

I am unclear about who used the phrase "continuing recession". Can you help? If it wasn't me, why are you bringing it up? But surely you agree that there has been a net loss of good paying jobs and an increase in those paying $10.00 or less. Certainly that seems to be what the statistics show over the last 30 years.

I never used the phrase "ignorant sheep" nor do I recall thinking it. Yes the less well off in many of the red states are conservative, that's why your guy won. But when I went to school the overwhelming majority of students were middle class, and conservative (that's two separate groups) not student radicals. I didn't really move left in my politics until I had been in the working world for a few years and saw first hand how inequities of income distribution worked. That was what was so distressing about all those CBS, NBC, and ABC news reports about anti-Viet Nam protesters being student radicals. Most of us weren't. We were protesting the Viet Nam involvement because A. we thought it was wrong, and B. we didn't want to go. Not because of some concept of Peace and World Government (tantamount to Communism, that) but because we thought the US government was involved in an unwinnable situation with no hope of Democratic government emerging.

And what you call a stereotype about the rich was addressed as a question if my recollection is correct. It drew on my experience as a University student. I still have academics as friends in the US as well as here and they tell me that the pool from which the students are drawn seem little different in background, only in color.

I might have been a history prof except for the re-intrusion in the early '70's of my respiratory trouble and my having to quit my Doctoral program. To reply to one of your comments during the War of 1812 bun-fight, of course my publications and submissions were coolly phrased in my best academic manner, particularly as I was not being attacked by someone whose understanding of history is at a high school level at best and whose best evidence was an 1869 Illustrated history.

You and I had a difference of opinion over the words "at best" in that post. As I'm sure you know "at best" indicates two other states of opinion, "judged neutrally" and "at worst". If the US Army's own history judges the war of 1812 "at best a draw", by extension "judged neutrally" there is only one other thing it could be, a loss. The Army history rules out a win. I am not making too great a leap here. Most academics would agree with me regarding that conflict. What was important for the US is not that they lost but that they survived and prospered.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Do try to follow along Rob ...
Dec 12, 2004 5:33AM PST

... you waste my time when I have to go back and remind you of what it is that I have said that prompts your own response:

Me: I happened to pick up a newsletter at a college library I was using the other day. In it was a letter from the Prez of the college explaining class section reductions. Apparently rather than the couple percent growth of enrollment, there had been twice that in enrollment losses leading to section closing and course cancellations. Among the reasons given were the "continuing recession and job losses" -- oh really? We're in a recession?? {emphasis now mine}

You cite lag in jobs, etc.

But surely you agree that there has been a net loss of good paying jobs and an increase in those paying $10.00 or less. Certainly that seems to be what the statistics show over the last 30 years.

No. The stats show no such thing. Yes, the good paying jobs for manufacturing trades have waned. You blame this on conservatives or the overly protectionistic and near extortion politics of the modern union?? Still, those were SKILLED jobs, and do not reflect the apparent demand the youth of today seem to have wrt to compensation for lack of ability or even desire to attain such Sad

I am IN today's universities. Even DK, who is in same, has never contested my observations of same. That ought to tell you something. Oh, so now it's only the priveleged minorities entering college. Utter BS!!

- Collapse -
After re-reading this post, and your reply to KP ...
Dec 13, 2004 3:25AM PST

... I can't help but add some comments regarding academia, and whatever differences there are between our two countries.

Let me preface this by saying that two of my husband's cousins are college profs in Canada -- one in sciences, one in theology. On just our recent visit we got into a discussion on grading and the quality of students. It actually began with a question of me along the lines of "do you find the quality of students going down"? Apparently the noticeable decline in the skills of incoming students (math, comprehension, problem solving) is something my Canadian counterpart has experienced along with similar perceptions that the trend is accelerating in the past few years. That indicates to me that you have the same problems of education degrading at the grade/high school levels as well. Indeed many of these same cousins have kids in your school systems and they report similar difficulties as parents here do ... one even has elected to homeschool her children because of it.

The one thing I do like about your system is the distinction of college vs. university. Here, it is pretty much the same year, however most universities only issue 4 year (bachelor's) degrees, while some colleges issue 2 year (associate's) degrees and some (typically public "community colleges") issue such degrees exclusively. Still most two-year programs are geared so that the student can at least transfer and continue on to a four degree degree. One notable exception being the Technology vs. Engineering degrees in such fields as Electrical. I have personal experience teaching and sharing the classroom with students in this field, and I find it sad how many go for the technical courses only to have to repeat calc-based versions of the same courses for the higher degree. However in this country, in many fields, an associate's degree doesn't mean much, although there are notable exceptions (LPN, medical assisting, electrical technology, some computer apps, etc.). What I like about your system is that it seems that those that don't want to really bother with "academia" still go on for additional training to gain marketable skills -- "vocation oriented". There seems to be little emphasis on this here in the US. However I've noticed that in sectors like retail, etc., there seems to be a growing desire of companies to train workers inhouse. Perhaps an indication that higher ed does not teach the skills necessary?

You do have somewhat of a point regarding the student body and the economic makeup. However I don't agree that this is due to some inability to afford the educaiton. I had friends in college that were quite literally "dirt poor" -- they not only didn't pay a dime, they also didn't owe a dime, and little if any of that was tied to academics except for not flunking out. However both of my parents came from lower middle class blue collar families (house painter and baker) and both attended college on SCHOLARships earned through hard work (my Mom in Math -- imagine that without affirmative action!). My FIL graduated college working his way through in three years while working full time on the side -- speaking not a word of English when he enrolled, and mere months after arriving in this country with little more than the clothes on his back -- one could hardly call him upper class.

However today, many universities find themselves filling affirmative action quotas with international students. A diversity maven's dream, but not elevating the minorities in the manner that this was supposed to. However when faced with trying to graduate a black from the hood that has suffered for lack of a good education vs. a black from the continent of Africa who's wealthy parents foot the full "retail" price of tuition -- which do you think they pick to fulfill the diversity culture dream? Meanwhile, their quotas of whites have already been filled by the best and the brightest, leaving little room for poor whites.

This still does nothing to explain the liberal slant of most faculty in academia which is what I was referring to and I thought you as well. In the sciences the students have some protection against the bias of teachers -- it is hard to discriminate on opinion for more concrete subjects. However when faculty is more liberal, the students quickly learn which papers get better grades. I sure learned that quickly myself in Philosophy. My writing ability had never been a detriment, rather an asset in high school. So when my Philo prof criticized my first paper for the writing style, I figured it was easier to just write how he preferred than argue my case. Got an A then promptly returned to my prior style. But for students for which this is their major, and not merely the occasional elective, their thinking almost inevitably is influenced by repeatedly offering opinions their professors will prefer.

- Collapse -
Thanks Evie, great post and much appreciated.
Dec 13, 2004 12:44PM PST

I didn't mean to imply that it was all due to cost, although U of Toronto for a Bachelors in the liberal arts curriculum is about $6000.00 with Engineering at around $9500.00 and medicine is just over 10,000.00 I think, but I was just looking for the guide that gives all the info and of course couldn't find it. (We've been tidying for our annual Christmas party) given the Canadian dollar is about$0.78 you could just reduce those figures by 30% for US dollars, but why am I telling you when you've probably already done it in your head.

Profs over the years have always complained about falling standards, and yet the product is fairly equal when it comes out. I think that perhaps students tested skills are declining but there are other factors we don't test for that make up the difference.

I have talked about my wife in glowing terms because she's wonderful, but don't ask her ANYthing about History, her highschool education was woefully lacking. She had no need of it because she was always going to do Medicine, and of course now she has me (Please extend her your sympathy. You think I can be overbearing on the Forum, try living with me, even I can't stand it sometimes.). And of course I have been pouring it all into my son so he's very well informed politically and historically for a 17 year old. Although I have warped him irremediably, he does on occasion disagree with me and argue surprisingly well. I may be training a lawyer, shudder.

I had an undergraduate prof in Greek and Roman History who was a 7 year PhD from Britain, and was all of 26 when he was teaching us. He was appalled by the quality of American secondary education, and didn't much like the University product either but said "But when you get to the Graduate level most of them are quite good".

I also had a Prof in first year who came in the classroom on the first day and said,"I don't teach undergraduates, I will send some of my students to teach, and I don't grade undergraduate papers, I throw them down the stairs, and grade them accordingly." He was not long from retirement and this was 1965 when you could get away with more. It was a Philosophy course too, and I did very poorly but a lot of that was my own fault because I cut too many classes and did too little work. I learned real quick. And imagine my parent's reaction to shelling out all that money and me coming home on probation for 2nd year!

I also learned to produce what was require although by the time I was a Junior they'd accept a paper with a contrary view if you were good at it. I wouldn't characterize the faculty as enormously liberal, they covered the spectrum, but the Grad students were SDS in training. What the late 70's and 80's were like in university I can't imagine.

I enjoyed and learned a lot from your post and thank you again for its pleasant informativeness. I apologize for my grumpy, short tempered self.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
A nice counter reply as well Rob ...
Dec 13, 2004 7:50PM PST

... but I do have to nit pick one statement: Profs over the years have always complained about falling standards, and yet the product is fairly equal when it comes out. I think that perhaps students tested skills are declining but there are other factors we don't test for that make up the difference.

I don't agree that the product is fairly equal. I can't imagine that some of the pre-meds I teach will ever become doctors -- it is truly scary actually! It's not so much test scores it is thinking outside some prepacked box that is sorely lacking. If you give them a test with almost the exact problems that are introduced in lecture and assigned for homework, they can do very well. You word the question slightly differently, you lose too many of them, you ask a different question entirely and a portion will go into "we never covered that" mode even though the question is perfectly fair for the subject matter. I recently had a college reunion and it was almost funny how to a one we remarked that our education had taught us how to think but most of us don't use much of the actual stuff we learned in our jobs. At least in the sciences, there is little opportunity to apply this philosophy as the students have been raised in a system of exacts. It's almost like if you don't spell out every minutia of what is expected of them on the first day, they can't adapt. That's certainly not real life, as a scientist in the field deadlines were always shifting, equipment might break down, etc. You also weren't given step by step instructions to prepare a solution, for example. I learned how to make solutions and could apply that to the workplace. Most of my students this past semester couldn't even understand that's what a question was asking Sad For a long time, employers have been complaining about the quality of the product. It is impossible to keep the quality of the product high while standards are continually lowered.

- Collapse -
As a recent returnee to the college campus, I have been
Dec 12, 2004 6:31AM PST

surprised at how poorly prepared the students are. They are frequently missing from class, do not have assignments ready, and do not appear to work very hard. I hear the same story. They can go elsewhere and get a degree, so the college overlooks all this to keep them in the school.

- Collapse -
That's a sad story, and a waste of a good education.
Dec 12, 2004 12:46PM PST

When I returned in 1987 they all seemed so serious, and so intent, and so driven. I thought perhaps it was because this was Canada, but as I got to know some of my professors they said it had started in the early '80's. The University of Toronto is one of, if not the best University in Canada, perhaps it was because you had to have 80+ percent to get in that it attracted only swots (my mother's word for browns). I was irreverent asked lots of questions in and out of class, and called the Profs, well some of the Profs by their first names. I was allowed, I was older than many of them.

My first undergraduate degree I managed just barely to survive my first year back in the 60's because I behaved like the kids you mentioned, though somehow I was the best in my History class without attending much. I was on probation for the next year, but hooked up in the second week with my wife-to-be who was a serious worker and taught me what I needed to learn about how to be a scholar.

Rule 1 go to every lecture.
Rule 2 write everything down.
Rule 3 start your research the night the essay
or other assignment is given out
Rule 4 revise every weekend
Rule 5 Party only when Rules 1 through 4 have been observed. And don't get so wrecked the next day is wasted.

Result, off probation and with an A average, and far less trouble with asthma from inhaling other people's cigarette smoke. Then off to graduate school. I might have been a History Prof if I hadn't had an asthma relapse during course work for a doctorate. Never completed the course work let alone got close to a thesis topic.

Rob Boyter

Second time around was a dream, mature, knew what to do, knew how to research, got great marks. Regrettably my son's birth interrupted my studies but since he's nearly perfect in every way I still came out ahead.

- Collapse -
Yes, it's sadly all too true ...
Dec 12, 2004 10:47PM PST

... and the faculty gets little support from the administration. Imagine being questioned about failing a student that walks out of a final exam a mere thirty minutes into the (two hour) exam and scores only 28%. There used to be a time when profs at least kept final exams or turned some in to ensure that they upheld academic standards. I would have thought that had the administration seen this exam and seen me pass this student, I would have been looked into for favoritism or grade buying. Sadly, I was grilled about the student's other grades, etc., in an effort to pass this student. You see, he was already on academic probation and his tuition dollars wouldn't be filling a seat the following semester if my grade held. It's not like he had done any of the other things to deserve the benefit of the doubt -- his attendance was atrocious, he got a 30-something on a take home exam!, and didn't avail himself of the tutoring provided for free by the college. To prevent a repeat of this, I now state SPECIFICALLY on the syllabus that the student must pass the final exam (and the lab portion if it is included) "separately" in order to pass the class. I'm not confident that this will solve the problem completely, and fully expect to be pressured to bend that rule some time in the future. I'm also not entirely sure that higher ups can't override my grade Sad

I heard a 60Minutes program on today's students and it rang a familiar bell. They have been raised in a generation that values participation and not merit. A recurring theme for students that do well, but not exceptionally so, that expect to get A's because they come to class and do all the work expected of them. Better than those that don't come to class and don't do the work, but the real world doesn't work on a "just show up" basis. I suppose not giving the successful enviable gold stars protects the little egos that might be bruised, but it is not creating the foundation for a very productive generation IMO.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Yes, it's sadly all too true ...
Dec 13, 2004 2:49AM PST

... and the faculty gets little support from the administration. Imagine being questioned about failing a student that walks out of a final exam a mere thirty minutes into the (two hour) exam and scores only 28%. There used to be a time when profs at least kept final exams or turned some in to ensure that they upheld academic standards. I would have thought that had the administration seen this exam and seen me pass this student, I would have been looked into for favoritism or grade buying. Sadly, I was grilled about the student's other grades, etc., in an effort to pass this student. You see, he was already on academic probation and his tuition dollars wouldn't be filling a seat the following semester if my grade held. It's not like he had done any of the other things to deserve the benefit of the doubt -- his attendance was atrocious, he got a 30-something on a take home exam!, and didn't avail himself of the tutoring provided for free by the college. To prevent a repeat of this, I now state SPECIFICALLY on the syllabus that the student must pass the final exam (and the lab portion if it is included) "separately" in order to pass the class. I'm not confident that this will solve the problem completely, and fully expect to be pressured to bend that rule some time in the future. I'm also not entirely sure that higher ups can't override my grade Sad

I heard a 60Minutes program on today's students and it rang a familiar bell. They have been raised in a generation that values participation and not merit. A recurring theme for students that do well, but not exceptionally so, that expect to get A's because they come to class and do all the work expected of them. Better than those that don't come to class and don't do the work, but the real world doesn't work on a "just show up" basis. I suppose not giving the successful enviable gold stars protects the little egos that might be bruised, but it is not creating the foundation for a very productive generation IMO.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Trade you a story. My archaeologist friend did her PhD at
Dec 14, 2004 6:48AM PST

Ann Arbor. She had the usual teaching load and one of her undergraduates came to her to protest an essay mark. Both this student's parents were Fine Art History professors and her grasp of the vocabulary was exceptional, unfortunately it was also superficial, but since she had only been evaluated previously by highschool teachers she didn't know how tenuous her grasp on the material was.

Comes the essay worth 20 to 30% of the final mark and she hands in a textbook regurgitation of her class work and receives a "B-". She was livid. Not only was it "the worst mark I've ever had" but it was going to blow her 4.0 GPA. So Meg sat down and went over the essay with her talked to her about what was required to receive an "A" and showed her which areas needed improvement. Off goes the student to revise the essay which is marked again and comes out as a "B+". Back comes the student and she's really ticked now. "But I did everything you told me to." To which Meg replies, "Yes, but as I also said you're not going to get an "A" without some real original thought and research on your own, not things I told you about in class or in our coversation about the essay. You have to do INDEPENDENT work that indicates a much better than average grasp of the material."

Ultimately the girl appealed to the Academic Senate who gave her an "A-" which satisfied her. But in truth and despite all her advantages she really didn't get the point. An "A" has to be earned, it's not just given automatically for adequate work. In this, as you say there is an advantage in the maths and sciences. Its quantifiable. If you learn the material thoroughly, you'll get an A. In the arts its a little more nebulous, and more dependent on a personal intellectual spark.

I had a similar experience in a Prehistory test on Celtic culture and art in 1987. As I was charging through the test I came upon a photograph of a ewer, or wine vessel that came from a place in France with unforgettable name of Basse Yutz. I hadn't seen this photo in class but I had seen it in our study material. All but two of us in the class got it wrong and everyone was up in arms because it hadn't been handed to them in class. I didn't earn any friends when I pointed out that it had been in one of the hand-outs and that some of us had read them.

Since Prehistory has become a particular interest of mine since my earlier university days and Celtic culture in particular, I did more than tolerably well in the course. But that's bragging.

Rob B.

- Collapse -
This is where the bias comes in with the faculty ...
Dec 14, 2004 7:12AM PST

... and it is undeniable in survey after survey where faculty self-identify as moderate to liberal, with an even greater slant evidenced by responses to specific issues. One might dismiss truly individual thought if it is so in opposition to one's own POV that they assume it to be dogma from "the opposition".

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) New "message limit" wording. Much better, I think
Dec 14, 2004 7:22AM PST
- Collapse -
I agree wholeheartedly Cindi, the message is much better.
Dec 14, 2004 7:39AM PST

And Evie, you're right (meaning correct), bias creeps in. It is to be hoped that there is enough breadth in the department to counter the one-eyed bias of a department where everyone thinks the same. Certainly I have met conservative Grad students in ostensibly liberal institutions who are well integrated, but I'll bet there's departments somewhere that act like rear-facing stomae (a**holes). Seems to be the tenor of our times that there are always idiots somewhere who will spoil the party for everyone.

Rob B

- Collapse -
"Started the downslide"?
Dec 6, 2004 11:21PM PST

US presidential elections have been pretty mucky from very early on.

Dan

- Collapse -
Some Canadians agree with Steinberg's 'unpleasant and
Dec 7, 2004 11:45PM PST

inaccurate' opinions.

Go down to the section headlined 'Yeah, that's us'.

Remember Rob, I'm not writing this stuff. This guy is on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm sure there are many nice people in Canada, but the ones I've gotten a closer look at are indeed like this.

- Collapse -
Re: Some Canadians agree with Steinberg's 'unpleasant and
Dec 8, 2004 3:30AM PST

The article under the heading "Opening shot" in your link is rather critical of the American population.

Americans fall over themselves to pay lip service to our military. We love a parade, and act like anybody who doesn't support our troops is a coward and a traitor. And then we turn our backs on the most deserving -- the wounded vet -- not by accident, not individually, but en masse, as a matter of policy.

Do you think that some Canadians might hold the same opinion of Americans?

As far as your opinion of Canadians being (except for the many nice people in Canada) mostly system-sucking crackpots like welfare recipients, erstwhile flower children whose grandkids wish they would get a haircut, and students with heavily-subsidized tuition practicing their right to free speech that was bought with blood in epic battles detailed in history books that they've never bothered to read.

Perhaps you are travelling in the wrong circles (hanging around with the wrong people).

- Collapse -
Please supply the link to 'my opinion'. I don't recall
Dec 11, 2004 6:03AM PST

writing anthing like that. In fact, it's not language I use.

Yes, I did say Steinberg tends to be on the liberal side.