Conservative fully tenured professors don’t exist.

That’s a statement of statistical fact, though not technical fact.  Technically there’s a few.  But given that there’s not even 300k tenured academics out of nearly 2 million “post-secondary teachers”, and given that conservative ones are not much above 5% nationwide (tenured or not), in a very real sense they don’t exist.   A few thousand professors is negligible.  At a very generous 10% of tenured academics, conservatives would represent perhaps 1/50 academics total, and the numbers are worse than that, increasingly close to 1/100 academics total.

But just like with liberals, they wield massive influence on conservative thought despite being almost, in a way, imaginary and fictional.

 

Advertisements

Teaching to the Test kinda works, Calculus edition

So one of the things I’ve been looking into for kid-education-related reasons is the prevalence of calculus at the high school level and whether it’s working out in terms of college prep. What I found was an interesting and rather dispiriting scenario in which teaching to the AP Calculus tests has become a standard and as a result calculus at the high school level’s relationship to mathematics preparation at the college level changed from the 1990s to the 2000s.

Power series are big in Japan.

In the 1990s, much of high school calculus was neither tailored to the AP curriculum nor necessarily the AP curriculum. Understandably, this meant that high school calculus varied wildly in quality across the nation in both public and private schools. The upshot was that through the 1990s, geometry, trigonometry and algebra grades in high school were more predictive of passing college calculus than high school calculus because it was more likely across schools that a well-prepared student had gotten a basic and relatively rigorous standard of pre-calculus preparation.

These aren’t just for dummies, they’re pretty important if you want to get anywhere useful in the wide green land of calculus.

Of course, the natural response of the new waves of college educated striver parents was to simply make sure that their kids not only took calculus in high school, but that they took the exact exam-based calculus that was used to grant course credit at the college level. Now high school calculus grades are plenty predictive of being able to do all right in college math classes, but the exam scores are far more so. That is, teaching to the test becoming the widely adopted standard for calculus at the high school level now means that doing well at spitting out exam answers demonstrates a strong ability to do so in similarly-structured college classes, and they frequently are.

RecentGraduateInterview.txt

I’m relaxed about this particular form of grade grubbing and memorization-as-mathematics because you can’t reason with people who will just keep doubling down in a rather pointless arms race. And college-graduate parents have done just that. The new college-ready ratchet is teaching calculus in middle school. You’re so surprised it’s happening in DC area schools. No, really, you are. It’s less than 1% of all students taking calculus pre-college now, but it’s quite plausible the number grows to somewhere around one in ten students over the next five or six years. There’s no reason to stop, since calculus has in many respects been stripped down to exam-friendly format even at the college level and if a 15 year old can memorize enough problem structures and formulas, it’s not hard to see parents making a 13 year old do the same for that extra edge, what with it already happening.

Coming to a SuperZip near you any day now.

“You’re just saying that because your kids can’t do it.”  Nope, my kids are pretty likely  on the end of the bell curve that has a fifth grader being able to do the necessary trigonometry to understand calculus intuitively.  The difference between me and married parents with five degrees between them whose kids can actually understand advanced math pre-pubescently is that I don’t think standardizing the system so that it’s considered reasonable for the generic student to start memorizing algebra problem forms at age 8 so they can plug and play calculus by age 11 is worthwhile or a good use of resources.

There is no good end game here, just an eventual reset towards sanity, but probably only after nervous breakdowns of elementary schoolers have unfortunately become standardized.

Sending fiction to the back burner (writing update)

As I’ve posted, I hoped to get a little bit of fiction published this year and start working under a pen name more regularly.  But alternatives exclude and to get some nonfiction done that I think is ultimately more important to do over the next five years, I’m just setting the idea of submitting stories aside.

I’d like to make (more) money writing fiction and see how high the tally can go, but I don’t have 72 hours a day and something nonessential has to be put aside, very hopefully temporarily.

So, on to nonfiction, which is harder, takes longer and which I can’t really post online sooner than next year unless things go super awesome for me this year.  Here’s hoping.

More feminine mystique: Betty Friedan likes to complain (Chapters 5-7)

Chapter 5 is some Freud bashing. Nothing wrong with that. But she really lays into people she terms Freud’s “popularizers” as particular vectors of over-sexualized and immature presentations of femininity as the properly ordered social norm for wives and mothers. She also blames the rising wave of scientism for cruelly tricking smart women into being housewives because Freud’s rapid adoption into the culture meant that “the science was settled”. Interesting, that sort of thing and how it never really leaves any secular, technologically driven society.

Chapter 6 is mostly a weird screed against Margaret Mead. But before that point, Friedan beefs about the completely true argument that most men and most women aren’t going to be dynamos blowing the roof off the world with their careers. The modern culture of self-absorbed “knowledge workers” deluded about the significance of their personal and direct contributions is exactly what the sociologists of Friedan’s day feared, or claimed to at the time. Their attempts to reassure women in their freshly constrained domestic spaces, though, were hollow, because Friedan was completely correct that it was just talk. Curiously, a wave of perhaps 70% right wing and 30% left wing college degreed women pretty much took all the “functional” science-speak of the 1950s around domesticity and reinvented it as ye olde domestick traditionne starting in the 1980s. In any case, Friedan doesn’t really get going until she can beat up on Margaret Mead.

She attacks Mead’s conception of women as passively receptive and unable to projectively produce creative work. Friedan pegs Mead as the source of what would turn into the “Crunchy” or “Natural Mama” culture of natural birth, babywearing, breastfeeding activism and really, even homeschooling and homesteading, though Friedan did not foresee how extensive what was already a formative culture would become. Yes, all the crunchy breastfeeding stuff was underway during the 1950s, which is when La Leche League was formed and there were articles in major magazines about homebirthing and unassisted birth. But Friedan asserts that what Mead offers in her odes to primitive natural traditions is a sort of hyper-naturalism and that what their bodies naturally do is what they should pour all their creative energy into displaying is a trap for American (white and college-educated) women.

The chapter closes with Friedan excoriating Mead for wanting to introduce some scientism into the proto-Mama Culture forming among educated women. Well, now I know how we got “breastfeed because of this science-talk about immune factors in the milk” and “natural-birth because of this science-talk about healthy bacteria”, and so on and so forth. Chapter 6 is kind of a fulcrum point in this book, where Friedan butts up against an unexpected approach taken by college educated wives and mothers– scientificizing the domestic and maternal so that scrubbing a floor and nursing a baby became, like owning ten different kinds of mop, a way to “use your education” via intellectualizing non-intellectual acts and later, via consumption to become an expert by owning many different tools and pieces of equipment.

Breastmilk pumping culture is nearly unknown outside the United States, and this is completely tied into that need to intellectualize and science-up something natural and relatively straightforward that stopped being so because there was a market for it. Friedan blames a popularizer, but given how American college-educated mothers exploded as a group, until in many regions they made up most of the mothers or even a supermajority of mothers, the effort falls flat in the face of what happened over the subsequent decades as American college moms got artificial birth control and did all the natural-cult stuff anyway. Friedan truly thought more educated women would lead to this not happening and she was profoundly wrong about the nature of the American woman.

There is also a lot of not-very-hidden Marxism, but it takes a while for her to really get going on that. The goal of “women need CAREERS” is inherently Marxist, and all the rest is just Friedan’s feels about how non-Marxist American college moms persisted in being despite all her hectoring.

Chapter 7 just totally vindicates my general view that in America mass college education for white women has primarily been about appearing as wife-material rather than wanting to pursue knowledge or be intellectually well-rounded or all the other pretty lies that get told about mass college for white women and which were interestingly much more true regarding much less but still kinda-mass college for black men and women. Having children (including adopting them if necessary) was utterly important to Vassar-ettes in 1956 and 1959. Being in an egalitarian marriage with a partner was absolutely not what they were interested in.

Friedan plays an interesting game of gotcha with the reader by having the college professors throw their hands in the air about how the girls just don’t want to have book learning beyond the bare minimum to get married and have kids via quotes but then lambasting the professors for sex-maddening the young girls and training them via coursework in literal home economics and baby-minding to think of themselves as purely receptive and to resist too much seriousness in intellectual pursuit.

Freidan very interestingly devotes several pages in Chapter 7 to complaining about smart, intellectually capable young women not attending college and having incredibly high birth rates, worrisomely comparable to Africa and India, as she puts it. She repeatedly laments the low college completion rate of young women, but barely has a word for the fact that it was nearly as low for young men, only about 50% in fact and that men had decided to spend the 1960s achieving dropout parity with women. The top third of students were expected to go to college, but they were not expected to collectively complete a degree. That much, at least, has radically changed in the intervening decades since Friedan wrote her tract.

She also promotes exceptionalism as a direct rebuttal to what she claims is the core argument of “functionalism”: that what 51% do, 100% must do. Friedan opts instead to promote the rare outlier as “a variation of normal”. Wow, now I know where 1970s midwives got that from! Friedan doesn’t use the phrase, but it sums up her argument. Weird outliers have to be normalized so more girls will choose those paths. What 1% do, 100% must do, in other words.  We now live in this world and in terms of motherhood it’s been devastatingly anti-natalist and anti-feminine.

Friedan also laments some prescriptions for middle-aged housewives with empty nests that have mostly come true: husbands retiring early to hang out with their wives, working part-time jobs that are non-career-path, volunteering and political activism . It’s very interesting to see a feminist lambast women being out of the home more in socially and politically influential ways.  It’s also a little weird to see her being angry about men being at home with their wives more, one would think a supposed egalitarian type would be pretty up with people about that.

More feminine mystique: Betty Friedan likes to complain (Chapters 3-4)

I’ve gotten through chapters 3-9 of the Feminine Mystique and my big takeaway is that Betty Friedan’s team won a lot of battles but in a very real sense lost the war. I continue to be baffled at how seriously her whining is taken, though. She admits, for example, that almost nobody, male or female, who could pursue a PhD does.

Then again,  if I could I would ask her “Why should we have raft after raft of PhDs?” Women dominate PhDs as it is now, due to technological advancements from men who overwhelmingly didn’t pursue PhDs (most PhDs women get are online and in things like Public Policy and Education). And all it means is that people find the PhD to be even more disconnected from real intellect and just another certification with higher social status than, say, a Project Management certificate due to historical reasons.

Chapter 3 isn’t just about the sads Friedan has about not enough PhD astronaut girls, though.  It also delves into broader concerns from Friedan about how college women are not going to “use their education”. This feminist and Marxist concern ultimately led to the professionalization of motherhood, complete with classes and an entire industry of what we now call momblogs (but which were published columns and books pre-internet) to allow college graduate mothers to feel like they were “using their educations” for child-rearing. The obsession with “science-backed” and “I researched x” to justify any number of mothering decisions (good ones and bad ones alike) is an all too common example of that professionalization.

Friedan’s points about housewives having a  lack of private image do remain valid.  This is a typical situation with this book.  Some of her critiques are still sound, but she either proposes a ridiculous solution or ignores the implications of her own critiques.  She ends chapter 3 noting that young men have a crisis as well, with no clearly defined roles beyond getting a good job where your wife didn’t have to work for wages and no roles from their own fathers and grandfathers to fall back to. But that’s half a page in an entire chapter because really, who cares about the men and the fact that if the nameless discontent and lost-ness by age 30 is hitting dudes despite their access to “real” college courses and breadwinning, it might just mean that there’s a wider structural problem with the society? That can’t be right, it’s all picking on poor college educated women.

Chapter 4 is Friedan’s charming propaganda effort, all about how nice, sweet, feminine and industrious the early feminists were and how they totally loved men just so much guyz. It is interesting that housewives traveled extensively to see the early feminists. Further documentation of Friedan’s assertions is probably worth pursuing. But the thing to remember is that these feminist-visiting housewives were the daughters of and in some cases frontier wives themselves.

Technological advancements, the very ones that made single-family frontiering possible as early as the 18th century in America and in vast numbers during the 19th century, reduced sexual dimorphism based on physical strength and made the arguments for allowing women more access to non-physical political and economic parts of society plausible. Women didn’t need an army of labor at-home to nearly the same degree as the decades of technological advancement wore on, and it is very telling that Friedan speaks not at all of this particularly relevant vehicle by which early American feminists could take the time and space to travel and even make livings off giving speeches and writing pamphlets.

On page 96 is a brief discussion of class status and an obligatory mention of Sojourner Truth,  but it elides that there is a difference between the historical (and increasingly present-day) middle class as a “slice” or middleman glue-class holding together a massive underclass and a tiny elite vs. the concept of the middle class as “people mostly in the middle”, which requires a broad standard of relative prosperity in a society to even pretend at.

Friedan’s laments are very suggestive that she prefers the slice model to the broad model, and her team won, as we’re rapidly going back to the historical norm of a small middle/professional class. The “slice” has always been bigger in America than the rest of the West, but it was still small until the narrow window of time from the postwar period in the late 1940s until approximately the end of Nixon’s first term in the early 1970s. Then it began shrinking again during the 1980s.

Friedan closes out Chapter 4 lamenting what birth control rendered moot: that given real freedom, educated American women were going for that darned wifeydom and motherhood and oh wasn’t this just terrible. Reading feminist writing before reliable artificial contraception is always very interesting because it’s quite clear that some of the things Friedan was lamenting during the 1950s were essentially disguised eugenics, to lock down the smart women and get them popping out kids and if they were kind of bored, well, at least the genetic material was propagated sufficiently and that was the important thing.

Chapters 5-9 coming Tuesday and Wednesday.

A touch of Feminine Mystique

I had already planned to read the classic of feminist thought, but had also put it off for the same reason.  However, the ongoing chapter-by-chapter discussion posted here at a great book blog got me to dig around for my copy and open it up.

I’ve only gotten through two chapters myself, and I can already see that Betty Friedan is a lot like Andrew Dworkin– very very intelligent, insightful, emotive and prone to fabulism. Both women reward close reading to ferret out what they’ve found out in their researches from what they fabulized.  Both also identified real issues with middle class and above white female life, and, though this wasn’t their intent, revealed some issues with historical and current black female life.  I can already see how this woman’s writing spawned dozens upon dozens of other books, both in support of and in rebuttal to her assertions and claims.

Very strangely, she spends Chapter Two running women down for keeping a truly massive civic and social structure going, the more fascinating because it was fairly brand new.  She also complains about the shift in content in women’s magazines while ostentatiously ignoring the tv-shaped elephant in the room.  When women’s labor was a lot less saved, reading a light story about a sassy proto-feminist heroine who still got the man was easy and relaxing.  But by the 1950s white women with college educations had tvs, sometimes more than one, and could see it instead.  So they did that.

Friedan so far seems to be quite cross that women don’t want to have dorm room bull sessions for their entire adult married lives.  Welp, her side won, married motherhood done right is now a permanent struggle of acquiring and demonstrating credentials and consulting with experts (quite frequently self-proclaimed, but what is Bad and Low Class when someone fundie or evangelical does it is A-OK if they got a couple of degrees first and are aggressively secular).

Whether you went to college or not, good motherhood’s peg is set by the women who never wanted anything other than the boundaries and limited definitions of the schoolroom to be the whole world.  And now we have no other choices.  Funsies.  I’d write more, but I have to take a class to be able to teach my own children at home, and they have to take classes on how to receive instruction itself.