03.08.05
Posted in grad school at 9:39 am by
I was at the hairstylist this morning. Jen and I use the same stylist. This is a good idea because it avoids the awkwardness of those ‘hairstylist conversations’ that I know we all hate. You know the ones I mean. You’ll be sitting in the chair and talk for 45 minutes straight about the weather, how much you hate the town you live in, and how much you’d love to live someplace warmer.
When you share a hairstylist with your wife you’ve got an instant topic of conversation. You can talk with that stylist about her. I like that. Anyway, our hairstylist bucks the system. She actually knows and remembers us. She asked me this morning about grad school and how it was going. I think I came up with something profound.
Hairstylist: So, if it’s spring break, why do you have to go to school today?
Me: Good question. I have a meeting with my thesis advisor. We’re going to talk about my thesis.
Hairstylist: What do you talk about?
Me: Good question. Basically, my thesis advisor reads the parts of my thesis that I have so far, and she tells me how dumb I am.
Hairstylist: That doesn’t sound fun.
Me: No, it’s not. But that’s what grad school is all about. Basically, you show up, think, and write. Your professors point out how dumb you are, time after time. Eventually, the hope is that you either drop out, or get less dumb. Either way, they turn out quality graduates. It’s really about perserverance and sticking with the process more than being smart. It’s not about being smart at all, it’s about realizing how dumb you really are.
Okay. I’ll admit that’s pretty cynical. But, I think that realizing how dumb you really are is one of the most important lessons one can learn in academia. After all, thinking you know how something works is NOT the way to get a publication. Knowing things we already know is basically recitation, regurgitation. It’s NOT knowing that really drives you toward success, toward uniqueness and, yes, genius. What an enigma.
Kinda makes you think twice about that ‘the more you know’ campaign that they used to show during the Saturday morning cartoon commercial breaks.
Permalink
03.07.05
Posted in education at 2:47 pm by
It occurs to me that some readers could have taken the No Child Left Behind post a bit differently than I intended for it to be taken. While it was sarcastic and satirical, it was not intended to belittle the opposition to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB ) bill.
Toni, a commenter on that particular post, raises an excellent point. She mentions that while a humorous point was made, it’s not always so funny for those teachers at ‘failing’ schools. In truth, they are entirely held responsible for their students’ performances.
Now, I also don’t pretend that ALL teachers are responsible wonderful human beings that should in no way be held accountable for the job they do. However, it also makes no sense to place the entirity of the responsibility to bring the children of this country up to some stellar sense of what is par.
Some teachers suck. Some teachers rock. No child left behind assumes that all teachers suck, and it’s up to them to prove that they don’t. Some of the teachers that rock have no problem proving that they rock. They simply do the job that they’ve been doing for so many years, and their students succeed.
However, some teachers that rock will keep rocking, and their students will ‘fail.’ No child left behind legislation says that because the students ‘fail’ the teacher sucks. And that, my friends, sucks.
I find it particularly suspicious that the teachers that have proven that they rock come from predominantly white, well-funded, and properly equipped school districts. Claiming that ALL the teachers at these economically challenged schools suck is a grossly racist concept.
I think my biggest problem with the legislation is the underlying belief that failing schools have a personnel problem. To me, this is VERY ignorant of problems of racism and classism.
So, in short, I don’t think that ALL teachers are doing a good job. Those teachers who are doing shitty work in well funded ‘passing’ schools, don’t deserve to get paid the salaries they do. But, it’s also true that teachers doing a good job in ‘failing’ schools don’t deserve the often relatively poor salaries and conditions that they have.
Permalink
03.03.05
Posted in culture, life at 3:21 pm by
I always struggle a bit with how best to respond to black history month, or women’s history month as a white man. On the one hand, I think they’re a cool way to raise awareness and celebrate African American culture in America, black culture the world over, women’s history, women’s issues, or any confluence of the four.
Now, I’m also not one of those white guys who thinks that it’s not fair to white men to not have ‘white men’s history month.’ No. I realize that every month is white men’s history month. And that, for me, is the issue. I think that all too often, these x history months (where x = a historically mistreated, underrepresented, etc., group) are used by white folks to feel good about being ‘multicultural.’
So, if you were wondering why I didn’t make any posts on black history during black history month (February) it’s because I don’t really like the idea of black history being given one month that it must remain relegated to. Perhaps, black history month or women’s history month are small steps in the right direction, and I’m too much of a utopian/critic. I don’t know.
Frankly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with celebrating either of these months, in fact, there’s a lot RIGHT with celebrating these months. I just think that stopping when the month ends is far too much of a temptation for lots of white men. (I can just see white men all over the US and abroad thinking, “Whew, glad we made it through another February and March, now we can get back to our war-mongering, gun-loving, white inventor shows on the History Channel…Hey woman, get me a beer.” You get the idea.)
Nonetheless, I don’t want the opportunity to share a few of my favorite new blogfinds to slip by. I realize that my list of ‘other blogs’ has gotten a touch on the ‘longish’ side of things. As such, it’s entirely possible that a few of you who don’t meticulously scour my link changes (read: pretty much all of you) probably missed a few of my newest additions, all of whom are women or written about women’s issues.
First is a blog that’s begun this February. I like a lot of what she’s got written, and though she hasn’t been writing long–I like what’s there. So, go check out Bridget Jones goes to Seminary. (Yes, if you were wondering, the title IS what got me.)
Another at the top of my list is Black Feminism. Great thoughts and commentary. All from an exceptionally underrepresented vantagepoint on the blogosphere.
I found Black Feminism by reading a link that’s been over on the sidebar for a while, ChurchGal. Frankly, ChurchGal is one of my top 5 favourite blogs. I strongly suggest making Ding a regular read.
Another of my new favourites is LAmom. Wonderfully insightful thoughts on everything from being pro-life, to liberal politics, to childbearing and motherhood.
I’d encourage y’all to pay them a visit. And, tell them Brandon sent you. Trust me, you’ll be glad you dropped by.
Permalink
Posted in politics at 2:28 pm by
I’m willing to go along with both Presidents–Bush and Clinton. Social security can be a ‘crisis.’ (See, I was fair and mentioned that both Presidents referred to the looming, if something that won’t be effected for the next 37 or so years can be considered to ‘loom’, soc. security issue as a crisis.)
At any rate, we have a problem. You wanna call it a crisis, cool. Let’s go with that. So if Social Security is currently a ‘crisis,’ and–as I would agree–we need to do something about it, where does that leave us. Frankly, I’m far less concerned that the President is interested in tackling the social security challenge…er…crisis, than I am concerned that he’s NOT seemingly concerned about things which are even bigger crises.
Here’s my list of crises that are fucking huge: (hey, we needed a word that supercedes crisis, since it’s being thrown around with such reckless abandon of late)…anyway, back on point…fucking huge crises:
1. The fact that the gaps between the upper and lower salary earners in this country is widening by the minute. Frankly, this is going to be a HUGE problem for social security unless we start taxing a larger proportion of the money that rich people make. Now, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe that only the first 89,000 or so of earnings are treated as FICA taxable.
2. If you’re pro-life, as I am, you believe that abortion is killing babies. Now, why does Bushie call this a ‘problem’ but social security a ‘crisis’? Babies are dying (according my definition of what makes a life and a baby) and Bush doesn’t seem to be jumping out of his pants to stop that…at least not like he is for social security.
3. The homeless. This is a crisis. Everyday people don’t have a place to be warm and sleep at the same time.
4. Health care. These folks, many of whom are homeless, etc., are unable to take their children to receive routine medical attention. Certainly this qualifies as much more of a ‘crisis’ than Social security.
So, fine. I’ll call social security a crisis. But when I do, it just makes the whole picture even more confusing than it was before.
Permalink
03.02.05
Posted in education at 2:30 pm by
Kristen over at McCarty Musings posted about parody of NCLB being passed around at the school she works at about the revised March Madness rules in compliance with No Child Left Behind. I liked it a lot and started coming up some of my own rules, it was going to be a comment, but it got so long, I decided to take it over here.
This is being passed around my school district- the teachers love it, because the teachers aren’t thrilled about NCLB. I thought it was pretty funny myself…
1. All teams must advance to the Sweet 16, and all will win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.
2. All kids will be expected to have the same basketball skills at the same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions will be made for interest in basketball, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY BASKETBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.
3. Talented players will be asked to practice on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren’t interested in basketball, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don’t like basketball.
4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th and 11th games.
5. This will create a New Age of sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimal goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left behind.
This list so inspired me that I decided to add a few rules of my own to the list:
6. Parents will in no way be held responsible for their children’s basketball ability. The child may or may not choose to practice freethrows at home, either way the coach is responsible.
7. Players will in no way be held responsible for their own basketball ability. They may or may not practice their freethrows at home, either way the coach is responsible.
8. If any teams fail to make it to the sweet 16 for three years in a row, all of the coaches and athletic directors for the team will be subject to firing. The team will be placed under the control of the parents (yes, the same parents who were in no way responsible to make sure that their child was practicing their freethrows.)
9. Success will be judged by your teams’ international performance against the selected individuals whom other nations designate as the ‘best basketball players their country has to offer.’ While countries outside the US are able to choose their all-stars, all teams in the US must bring our least talented players up to ‘all-star’ status.
10. Teams must take on and be judged on the basis of ALL performers on said team. This includes any individuals who are immigrants from other countries who are in no way farmiliar with the playbook, the language of the coach, or the nature of the game of basketball . These immigrant players will be expected to perform at or above the status of ‘all-star’ immediately.
11. Insufficient funding is not an excuse for poor performance. All teams will be expected to perform at the aforementioned ‘All Star’ level regardless of school income level. (i.e. teams from the Detroit Public Schools will be expected to perform at the level of teams from Grosse Point Public Schools (even though state funding per stu…oops, player at the Grosse Pointe Public Schools is in the realm of 3 or 4 thousand dollars more per player per year.)
12. All teams will be expected to perform on an equal level–this is the case regardless of whether or not teams are given equal access to uniforms, practice gymnasiums, nice basketball shoes, nutritionial supplements, etc.
13. In the unlikely event that the team makes the Sweet 16 and wins the ensuing championship, all the praise and glory goes to George W. Bush.
14. In the event that a team fails to make the Sweet 16 or fails to win the ensuing championship, George W. Bush will be able to publicly and personally declare the coaches of any of said teams ‘failures’ with no political ramifications.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea…Thanks, Kristen, for the post.
Permalink
03.01.05
Posted in grad school at 12:46 pm by
As I mentioned a post about boobies ago, I am a graduate student studying communication. Basically, in order to be a COM scholar (and that’s what we call ourselves) you just need to study the communication of x. (Where x is just about any other human function you can dream up.) For me x = leadership. That’s what my thesis is about.
In the first draft of my thesis proposal I did a pretty good literature review but my biggest downfall was that I didn’t define my constructs to the satisfaction of my advisor. Frankly, she was right, I didn’t define them well enough. So…before Friday I need to define leadership. Not talk about who some leaders are or what leaders do–at least not exactly–I need to define leadership, in the abstract.
At first glance, this seems like a task akin to defining the color black. How can we do it? It’s a color. It’s not white, blue, red, green, or purple. It’s the absence of light. What it really is, is hard to describe or define. The same is true with leadership. I thought long and hard about what the first step in my journey along defining leadership should be, and I thought of all of you.
Basically, you’re my semi-captive audience. (Semi-captive because you could leave if you wanted to, but in spite of all of the crap that I’ve written so far you’ve stuck around…thus, you must be captive in some sense.) So, I decided I’d try my definition out on you. Bear with me here, I’m just going off the top of my head.
Here goes:
Groups are one of the most prevalent social structures that society employs to accomplish tasks. Firefighters, accountants, executives, sports players, and educators work in teams, committees, and groups. Finding a truly leaderless where no individual has stepped into or been appointed into the role of leader is nearly impossible. Thus, the prevalence of leadership is as prevalent as the social structure of the group in modern society.
Despite the prevalence of leadership, researchers have not arrived at any one definition as to what, exactly, leadership is (Stogdill, 1974).1 Some researchers have held that a leader is the embodiment of the central will of the group (Bass, 1990)2, while others contrast trait definitions of leadership with process definitions of leadership. One point of common ground in the leadership literature, however, is that leadership exists in a group setting.
Some concepts such as power, status, or influence are closely related to leadership. However, delineating these concepts from leadership is important. While many leaders are able to exert power, for example, it is not always the case that powerful individuals will be perceived as the leader of a group. Individuals who use power in a group setting may be leaders; however, their use of power may or may not steer the group toward a group objective.
Likewise, a group members’ status may be attained through experience, age, height, or any number of other characteristics. Status, however, must also be viewed as a related but separate construct from leadership. It is true that many high status members gain a leadership title, as well. However, in and of itself status simply is a measure of the hierarchy present within a group.
Influence, as well, is a related but not sufficient condition of leadership. Influence describes the ability of group members to persuade or coerce other members of their group. Certainly, being able to get all group members to follow (by persuasion) is a quality of leadership; however, if the sucess of the group is not the motivation of the influencer, this persuasion or coersion cannot be considered as part and parcel of leadership.
One common theme found in the process of deciphering these related but different constructs is the understanding of leadership as a goal directed role. An individual must have sufficient power, status, and influence within a group. However, without that power, status, and influence being used to direct a group toward a desired outcome of the group as a whole, leadership is not present.
Proponents of the process view of leadership hold that leaders are individuals who fit the needs of a particular situation. Because task situations vary widely as to the type of leadership that must be exerted, the type of individuals who will successfully serve as leaders in these situations varies widely, as well. On the contrary, the trait view of leadership states that individuals who have a certain constellation of in-born traits will be the most likely individuals to emerge as leaders.
Thus, for the purposes of this research leadership will be defined as the quality that individuals in group settings have that allows them, through the use of power, status, and influence, to lead a group toward a goal desired by the group as a whole.
____________
1 Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
2 Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
So, did I lose you yet?
Permalink
· Next entries »
