robertogreco + fairness   31

Admit Everybody | Current Affairs
"There are two conclusions here, one of which I agree with and one of which I find objectionable. The conclusion I agree with is that the SAT may be the “least bad” of three options for competitive admissions, when compared with using grades or Mushy Holistic Factors, and that therefore eliminating the SAT alone won’t in and of itself produce greater equality and could backfire. (I even have a certain soft spot for the SAT because it enabled me, a person who didn’t know any of the weird upper-class “holistic” signals that impress colleges, to go to a good college.) But the conclusion I disagree with is that this somehow makes a “progressive case for the SAT,” or that we should “defend the SAT.” This is the same logic that causes people like Nicholas Kristof to argue that because sweatshops are supposedly better than farm labor, there is a progressive case for sweatshops and we should defend them. This is one of the differences between liberalism and leftism: liberalism argues for the least bad of several bad options, while leftism insists on having a better set of options.

It’s the talk about “powerful ways” to “distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack” that troubles me. My concern is about what happens to the rest of the pack! As my acquaintance Patrick Conner put it, the difference between meritocracy and socialism is “I don’t want everyone to have a fair shot at the 15% of non-shitty lives, I want everyone to have a decent life.” Instead of arguing for the least-unfair version of the brutally competitive war of all-against-all that is the contemporary college admissions system, the progressive case should be that we ought to have an actual fair admissions system.

In other words: just admit everybody. The whole “competitive” nature of undergraduate admissions is absurd to begin with, and the very fact that students are sorted according to “merit” is socially corrosive. Let’s face it: college isn’t like brain surgery or social work. People’s lives aren’t in your hands. Instead of finding the “top ten best people” we should be selecting “anyone who has proved they are capable of doing the expected work.” Competitive admissions are as irrational as grading curves. With a grading curve, only X percent of the class will get As on their papers, even if every single person in the class wrote an excellent paper, which forces you to start making silly and arbitrary distinctions in a contrived effort to pit the students against each other. The better way to grade is by developing a standard independently and giving students a qualification if they meet the standard. Here’s the admissions parallel: everyone who shows themselves capable of doing the work required of a Harvard undergrad is marked “qualified” for Harvard and allowed to apply. There are a limited number of places, of course, but those places will be filled by selecting a random group of students from among all of those marked “qualified.” You might still get a very low percentage of applicants admitted because space is limited, but it won’t be because those applicants have been deemed worthier, it will be because the lottery happened to favor them.

My vision of universities is as a place where anybody can come and learn, so long as they can do the work. Now, you could argue that at elite schools, the work is so hard that only a few people would be qualified to do it. That’s false, though. I have been a TF at Harvard, so I am acquainted with the level of rigor in the undergraduate curriculum, and it’s obvious that vastly more students than the 4.8% they actually admit are capable of passing the courses. In fact, possibly the majority of the applicants could do fine. We know that college admissions are a crapshoot. But let’s just make them an actual crapshoot, so that nobody would be deluded into thinking that merit was involved, beyond the merit of basic literacy and numeracy.

We might have a different system at the graduate level, where higher levels of specialized skill are required. But I think the same principle should be followed: set a clear standard for the minimum a student needs to be able to do. Make that standard public, so that everybody knows that if they can do X they will have the same shot at being admitted to a program as anybody else. Then choose at random from among those who have met the basic standard.

Alright, so you can probably come up with half a dozen criticisms of this system, the way you can criticize the idea of a randomly-selected congress or a jury trial. Colleges will raise the “basic standard” to unrealistic levels and thus recreate a highly-competitive admissions system, and Harvard will start pretending that you need to be able to do calculus in order to muddle your way to a Bachelor of Arts there. (You don’t.) As long as you still have underlying social and economic inequalities, you can’t actually have an equal system, because everything will reflect those inequalities until we get rid of them. Rich parents will always find ways to make sure their children get more than other children. This is part of Freddie’s point, and he is right: instead of fixing the admissions system you have to fix the economic system, because you can’t isolate the one from the other. It’s an important point, but it doesn’t amount to a defense of the “meritocracy” illusion or the concept of “distinguishing from the rest of the pack.” And the left’s education experts should be devising practical alternatives to meritocracy rather than slightly-less-awful versions of it.

We should always be clear on what the goal is: a world in which we don’t all have to fight each other all the time, where we can work together in solidarity rather than having to wage war against our friends for the privilege of having a good job. There is no reason why everyone shouldn’t have equal access to the highest-quality education, and in a properly organized society it would be perfectly simple to provide it. We don’t need “best” and “worst” universities, ranked from top to bottom, we just need “universities,” places where people go to explore human knowledge and acquire the skills that enable them to do things that need doing. Progressive education means an end to the illusion of meritocratic competition, an end to the SAT, and the realization of a vision of equal education for all."
sat  standardizedtesting  testing  nathanrobinson  2018  freddiedeboer  bias  elitism  inequality  meritocracy  liberalism  leftism  progressive  patrickconner  socialism  competition  selectivity  colleges  universities  highered  highereducation  admissions  education  ranking  society  merit  fairness  egalitarianism 
april 2018 by robertogreco
Subjectivity, Rubrics, and Critical Pedagogy – OFFICE OF DIGITAL LEARNING
"In “Embracing Subjectivity,”مها بالي (Maha Bali) argues “that subjectivity is the human condition. Everything else that attempts to be objective or neutral is pretense. It is inauthentic. It is not even something I strive towards.”

And yet we try very hard to be objective in the way we evaluate student work. Objectivity is equated with fairness, and is a tool for efficiency.

For too long—really, since its inception—instructional design has been built upon silencing. Instructional design generally assumes that all students are duplicates of one another. Or, as Martha Burtis has said, traditional design assumes standardized features, creates standardized courses, with a goal of graduating standardized students.

Despite any stubborn claims to the contrary, instructional design assigns learners to a single seat, a single set of characteristics. One look at the LMS gradebook affirms this: students are rows in a spreadsheet. Even profile images of students are contained in all the same circles, lined up neatly along the side of a discussion forum: a raised hand, a unique identifier, signified. “This is your student,” the little picture tells the instructor. And now we know them—the LMS has personalized learning.

This design is for efficiency, a thing that online teachers—especially those who design their own courses—desperately need. Digital interfaces can feel alienating, disconcerting, and inherently chaotic already; but add to that the diversity of student bodies behind the screen (an adjunct at a community college may teach upwards of 200 students per term), and staying on top of lessons and homework and e-mail and discussions feels hopeless at worst, Sisyphean at best.

And yet this striving for efficiency enacts an erasure that is deeply problematic.

Rubrics

Sherri Spelic writes:
Inclusion is a construction project. Inclusion must be engineered. It is unlikely to “happen” on its own. Rather, those who hold the power of invitation must also consciously create the conditions for sincere engagement, where underrepresented voices receive necessary air time, where those contributing the necessary “diversity” are part of the planning process. Otherwise we recreate the very systems of habit we are seeking to avoid: the unintentional silencing of our “included” colleagues.

If we are to approach teaching from a critical pedagogical perspective, we must be conscious of the ways that “best practices” and other normal operations of education and classroom management censure and erase difference. We must also remain aware of the way in which traditional classroom management and instructional strategies have a nearly hegemonic hold on our imaginations. We see certain normalized teaching behaviors as the way learning happens, rather than as practices that were built to suit specific perspectives, institutional objectives, and responses to technology.

The rubric is one such practice that has become so automatic a part of teaching that, while its form is modified and critiqued, its existence rarely is. I have spoken with many teachers who use rubrics because:

• they make grading fair and balanced;
• they make grading easier;
• they give students clear information about what the instructor expects;
• they eliminate mystery, arbitrariness, and bias.

Teachers and students both advocate for rubrics. If they are not a loved part of teaching and learning, they are an expected part. But let’s look quickly at some of the reasons why:

Rubrics Make Grading Fair and Balanced

Rubrics may level the grading playing field, it’s true. All students are asked to walk through the same doorway to pass an assignment. However, that doorway—its height, width, shape, and the material from which it is made—was determined by the builder. مها بالي reminds us that, “Freire points out that every content choice we make needs to be questioned in terms of ‘who chooses the content…in favor of whom, against whom, in favor of what, against what.'” In other words, we need to inspect our own subjectivity—our own privilege to be arbitrary—when it comes to building rubrics. Can we create a rubric that transcends our subjective perspective on the material or work at hand? Can we create a rubric through which anyone—no matter their height, width, or shape—may pass?

Recently, collaborative rubrics are becoming a practice. Here, teachers and students sit down and design a rubric for an assignment together. This feels immediately more egalitarian. However, this practice is nonetheless founded on the assumption that 1. rubrics are necessary; 2. a rubric can be created which will encompass and account for the diversity of experience of all the students involved.

Rubrics Make Grading Easier

No objection here. Yes, rubrics make grading easier. And if easy grading is a top concern for our teaching practice, maybe rubrics are the best solution. Unless they’re not.

Rubrics (like grading and assessment) center authority on the teacher. Instead of the teacher filling the role of guide or counsel or collaborator, the rubric asks the teacher to be a judge. (Collaborative rubrics are no different, especially when students are asked by the teacher to collaborate with them on building one.) What if the problem to be solved is not whether grading should be easier, but whether grading should take the same form it always has? Self-assessment and reflection, framed by suggestions for what about their work to inspect, can offer students a far more productive kind of feedback than the quantifiable feedback of a rubric. And they also make grading easier.

Rubrics Give Clear Information about What the Instructor Expects

Again, no objection here. A well-written rubric will offer learners a framework within which to fit their work. However, even a warm, fuzzy, flexible rubric centers power and control on the instructor. Freire warned against the “banking model” of education; and in this case, the rubric becomes a pedagogical artifact that doesn’t just constrain and remove agency from the learner, it also demands that the instructor teach to its matrix. Build a rubric, build the expectations for learners in your classroom, and you also build your own practice.

The rubric doesn’t free anyone.

Rubrics Eliminate Mystery, Arbitrariness, and Bias

This is simply not true. No written work is without its nuance, complication, and mystery. Even the best technical manuals still leave us scratching our heads or calling the help desk. Rubrics raise questions; it is impossible to cover all the bases precisely because no two students are the same. That is the first and final failing of a rubric: no two students are the same, no two writing, thinking, or critical processes are the same; and yet the rubric requires that the product of these differences fall within a margin of homogeneity.

As regards arbitrariness and bias, if a human builds a rubric, it is arbitrary and biased.

Decolonizing Pedagogy

Critical Digital Pedagogy is a decolonizing effort. bell hooks quotes Samia Nehrez’s statement about decolonization at the opening of Black Looks: Race and Representation:

Decolonization … continues to be an act of confrontation with a hegemonic system of thought; it is hence a process of considerable historical and cultural liberation. As such, decolonization becomes the contestation of all dominant forms and structures, whether they be linguistic, discursive, or ideological. Moreover, decolonization comes to be understood as an act of exorcism for both the colonized and the colonizer.

For Critical Pedagogy, and Critical Digital Pedagogy, to work, we have to recognize the ways in which educational theory, especially that which establishes a hierarchy of power and knowledge, is oppressive for both teacher and student. To do this work, we have to be willing to inspect our assumptions about teaching and learning… which means leaving no stone unturned.

With regards to our immediate work, then, building assignments and such (but also building syllabi, curricula, assessments), we need to develop for ourselves a starting place. Perhaps in an unanticipated second-order move, Freire, who advocated for a problem-posing educational model, has posed a problem. A Critical Digital Pedagogy cannot profess best practices, cannot provide one-size-fits-all rubrics for its implementation, because it is itself a problem that’s been posed.

How do we confront the classrooms we learned in, our own expectations for education, learners’ acquiescence to (and seeming satisfaction with) instructor power, and re-model an education that enlists agency, decolonizes instructional practices, and also somehow meets the needs of the institution?"
seanmorris  rubrics  education  pedagogy  learning  mahabali  subjectivity  objectivity  2017  grades  grading  assessment  marthaburtis  sherrispelic  inclusion  inclusivity  diversity  criticalpedagogy  classroommanagment  fairness  paulofreire  coercion  collaboration  judgement  expectations  power  control  agency  howwelearn  homogeneity  samianehrez  race  represenation  decolonization  hierarchy  horizontality  onesizefitsall  acquiescence  instruction  syllabus  curriculum  syllabi 
august 2017 by robertogreco
불확실한 학교 Uncertainty School
"Uncertainty School is a school to explore potential that cannot be described in a language of the world of certainty. The school’s curriculum focuses on art, technology, disability, and their correlation with one another, and aims at unlearning of exclusive or discriminatory viewpoints we have unconsciously accepted. Uncertainty School invites artists, activists and students main participants, regardless of disability. The school holds workshops for participants and public seminars open to general audience. The school provides sign language interpretation, translation, stenography, taking participants’ various types of disability into consideration, and offers education in a space easily accessible by the people with varying types of physical disabilities. Uncertainty School encourages participants to develop their independent artistic practice while forming a community of interdependent learning, in pursuit of a genuine value system based on fairness, beyond the concept of pro forma equality.

Uncertainty School workshops organized by Taeyoon Choi will introduce computer programming skills, online publication and exhibition methods, conducive to participants’ creative practice. Uncertainty School seminars will feature local and international artists participating in Mediacity Seoul 2016. The artists will to introduce their work and discuss technology, environment, and the human body in contemporary art.

Participants and collaborating artists will produce artwork or reinterpret existing work and present a group exhibition at Community Gallery of Buk Seoul Museum of Art. The entire process will be documented in video and writing, and posted on the website of Mediacity Seoul 2016."
uncertaintyschool  lcproject  openstudioproject  seoul  korea  southkorea  taeyoonchoi  altgdp  education  school  schooldesign  unschooling  deschooling  art  artschools  equity  fairness  unlearning  artschool 
december 2016 by robertogreco
Dr. Cornel West | Reflections on the Life and Legacy of Nelson Mandela | Official Web Site
[previously on militant tenderness and subversive sweetness: https://twitter.com/search?q=rogre%20militant%20tenderness ]

"The natural death of Nelson Mandela is the end of not only a monumental life but also an historic era. Like any spectacular cultural icon, Mandela was many things to all of us. Yet if we are to be true to his complex life and precious legacy, we must pierce through the superficial surfaces and market-driven fanfares. Mandela was a child of his age and a man who transcended and transformed his times. He was a revolutionary South African nationalist who embraced communists even as he embodied his Christian faith and enacted his democratic temperament. He was a congenial statesman whose prudential style and message of reconciliation saved South Africa from an ugly and bloody civil war.

Mandela the man was rooted in a rich African tradition of soulcraft that put a premium on personal piety, cultural manners and social justice. Ancestor appreciation, gentle embrace of others and fair treatment of all was shot through the "soul-making" of the young Nelson Mandela. The fusion of his royal family background, high Victorian and Edwardian education and anti-imperialist formation yielded a person of immense self-respect, moral integrity and political courage. These life-enhancing qualities pit Mandela against the life-denying realities of the dark underside of European imperialism—realities of pervasive terror, chronic trauma and vicious stigma. Yet though deeply wounded and perennially scarred by these realities, Mandela emerged from such nightmarish circumstances with sterling character—a militant tenderness, subversive sweetness and radical gentleness even acknowledged by his foes. To put it bluntly, Mandela the man chose to live a life of wise remembrance, moral reverence and political resistance rather than a life of raw ambition, blind avarice and personal subservience. More pointedly, Mandela refused to be intimidated by the Goliath-like powers of an authoritarian regime.

Mandela the revolutionary movement leader was blessed with a rich South African progressive tradition unmatched anywhere on the globe. Where else can we find so many spiritual giants and political exemplars of courage—from Desmond Tutu, Walter Sisulu, Beyers Naudé, Joe Slovo, Ruth First, Albertina Sisulu, Robert Sobukwe, Steve Biko, Billy Nair, Allen Boesak, Ronnie Kasrils, Rusty Bernstein, Oliver Tambo and so many others. Mandela the man was deeply shaped by the South African freedom movement. He began as a narrow black nationalist, shifted quickly to a United Front strategy, supported the armed struggle and called off the counter-violent stance only when the government renounced violence. Mandela was designated a dangerous enemy of the South African government—a terrorist, communist, traitor and hater—because he led a movement that saw South African laws as themselves criminal. He was imprisoned for over 27 years, permitted one visit and one letter every six months, forbidden to attend the funerals of his mother and oldest son, often relegated to solitary confinement, and sometimes permitted to read only his Bible because his courageous witness as part of the freedom movement constituted the major threat to the South African government. As international support for Mandela and the movement escalated (including many African leaders, the Soviet Union, and millions of people of all colors around the world) and international support for the South African regime was exposed (including America's Reagan and Britain's Thatcher), old-style apartheid began to crumble. The writing on the wall was clear as the Berlin Wall fell.

Mandela the statesman tried to hold together a fragile emerging multiracial democracy and heal a traumatized society against the backdrop of a possible civil war. This incredible balancing act highlighted the spiritual qualities and moral sentiments of Mandela the man—and made him the democratic saint of our time. Yet this gallant effort also downplayed Mandela the revolutionary movement leader who highlighted targeting wealth inequality, corporate power and sheer corruption and cronyism in high places. Mandela is the undisputed father of South African democracy because the freedom movement he led broke the back of old-style apartheid. Yet his neoliberal policies—much to the delight of corporate elites and new black middle-class beneficiaries—failed to address in a serious manner the massive unemployment, inadequate housing, poor medical facilities and decrepit education. The masses of precious poor people—disproportionately black—have been overlooked by the full-fledge integration of the South African economy into the global capitalist world.

I asked the great Nelson Mandela about this grave situation after I gave the Nelson Mandela lecture in Pretoria a few years ago. I lambasted the Santa-Clausification of Nelson Mandela that turned Mandela the man and the revolutionary leader into an unthreatening, huggable old man with a smile with bags full of toys—especially for cheering oligarchs like the Oppenheimers or newly rich elites like Cyril Ramaphosa. Even global neoliberal figures like Bill Clinton and Richard Stengel of Time Magazine become major caretakers of Mandela's legacy as his revolutionary comrades fade into the dustbin of history. As I approached him, he greeted me with a genuine smile of deep love and respect, expressed in the most elevating and encouraging language his appreciation of my righteous indignation in my speech and told me to be steadfast in my witness.

The most valuable lesson we can draw from the life and legacy of Nelson Mandela is to be neither afraid nor intimidated by the neoliberal powers that be. We must create our own deep democratic forms of soulcraft, social movements and statecraft—forms that resist the dominant forces of privatizing, financializing and militarizing that overlook poor and working people. Nelson Mandela met the most pressing challenges of his day with great dignity, decency and integrity. Let us confront the free-market fundamentalism, escalating militarism and insidious xenophobia in our day with his spirit of love, courage and humor.

-- Dr. Cornel West"

[via: "Showed kids 60 Minutes with Cornel West last night. ("I'm unimpressed by smartness.") http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-cornel-west-on-race-in-the-u-s/ "
https://twitter.com/ablerism/status/711908596540379136

"+ See also West on Mandela: "a militant tenderness, subversive sweetness and radical gentleness." http://www.cornelwest.com/nelson_mandela.html "
https://twitter.com/ablerism/status/711908847695368192 ]
cornelwest  tenderness  sweetness  care  caring  gentleness  radicalism  radicalgentleness  subversivesweetness  militanttenderness  militancy  nelsonmandela  soulcraft  piety  manners  culture  justice  socialjustice  ancestors  appreciation  fairness  imperialism  trauma  terror  stigma  character  democracy  freedom  society  fear  neoliberalism  legacy  statecraft  privatization  finance  militarization  poverty  dignity  decency  integrity  courage  love  humor  canon  xenophobia  militarism  via:ablerism 
march 2016 by robertogreco
The simple idea that could transform US criminal justice | Tina Rosenberg | US news | The Guardian
"Judge Victoria Pratt looks defendants in the eye, asks them to write essays about their goals, and applauds them for complying – and she is getting results"



"Calabrese was using what have become the four principles of procedural justice: first, that people who come before a judge trust that the process is impartial; second, that they are treated with respect; third, that they understand what is going on and what they are expected to do; fourth, that they have a voice. Defendants find the procedure fairer when they are allowed to state their views. Experimental evidence shows that this is true even when they are allowed to speak only after the judge has announced their decision. No one likes to lose a court case. But people accept losing more willingly if they believe the procedures used to handle their case are fair.

* * *
The concept of procedural justice was first formulated by a social psychologist named Tom R Tyler. Entering Columbia University in 1969, Tyler started college at a moment when respect for the law was at a low point. Racial segregation had been outlawed in the US only five years earlier, but was still defiantly enforced in many parts of the south. The US was fighting a war in Vietnam that was widely considered immoral and illegal. “My entire generation was preoccupied with the question of why we would or wouldn’t obey laws, and whether the law was legitimate,” he said.

The question continued to preoccupy Tyler throughout his time in college. Unlike other researchers in his field, what interested him was not why people break the law, but why they do not. Even criminals, he noted, follow the law most of the time. In his 1990 book Why People Obey the Law, Tyler came up with a novel explanation.

Criminal justice systems everywhere run on the assumption that people obey the law because they are afraid of punishment. B Tyler argued that the key factor is legitimacy: people obey the law because they believe the state has the right to tell them what to do. Broad legitimacy matters more than whether people believe an individual law to be right or wrong – although the public’s view about individual laws can influence broad legitimacy.

In the courts, Tyler argued, legitimacy is created by the perception of fairness. But while lawyers and judges tend to assume that fairness refers to the outcome of a case, that is generally not what matters most to the people who come before a court. For example, Tyler and a colleague asked defendants to describe the process and the outcome of their cases, and whether they willingly accepted the court’s decision. Through statistical analysis, the researchers found that defendants were far more likely to willingly accept the court’s decision if they felt they had been treated fairly. Indeed, this was much more important to defendants in this regard than a favourable outcome.

In other words, an offender is more likely to do what the authorities tell him and refrain from committing further crimes if he feels that he is treated with respect and fairness – regardless of the judge’s ruling. “This discovery has been called ‘counterintuitive’ and even ‘wrongheaded,’” stated a paper published in 2007 by the American Judges Association, “but researcher after researcher has demonstrated that this phenomenon exists”."
law  crime  justice  proceduraljustice  2015  criminaljustice  dignity  respect  fairness  victoriapratt  newark 
june 2015 by robertogreco
Why Wikipedia Works Really Well in Practice, Just Not in Theory, with Jonathan Zittrain - YouTube
"Harvard University's Jonathan Zittrain explores the amazing success of Wikipedia, a concept that "works really well in practice, just not in theory." Not only is it a remarkable and unique model of a self-regulating entity, its governors and stakeholders are both members of the public at large. Zittrain examines whether Wikipedia is something that can be sustained long term, whether it will need to adapt or grow in the future, and whether such adaptations and growth could potentially scuttle the entire operation. Finally, Zittrain offers up a suggestion for how to apply Wikipedia in an academic setting: Why not turn Wikipedia articles into long-term research projects?"

[See also page with transcript: http://bigthink.com/videos/the-model-for-wikipedia-is-truly-unique

"Jonathan Zittrain: There's a great saying that Wikipedia works really well in practice, just not in theory. And that is true. Wikipedia's success is so singular, so spectacular that figuring out whether it's a model for anything other than Wikipedia is a puzzle that even the folks behind Wikipedia have faced as they've tried to do Wikisearch, Wikinews, and Wiktionary at different times. But the idea of having a scheme where the day-to-day governance, the day-to-day edits, whether done for substance to improve the truth level of an article in the view of the editor or done for process, oh that edit shouldn't have been made; it breaks the following rule; I'm going to revert it. To have the people doing that be members of the public at large is an extraordinary devolution of responsibility out to people who are in one way or another, implicitly or explicitly sort of taking an oath to subscribe to the principles behind Wikipedia of neutrality, of fairness, of learning — kind of the values of the enlightenment. And can that survive itself over the long haul? I don't know. As you get more and more importance attached to Wikipedia, more and more places that draw from Wikipedia as a source of data, whether it's something like the Wolfram Alpha Knowledge engine or Google to assemble basic facts for results in a search. There may be more and more reason for entities to want to game the results.

If you can just put yourself in the Guinness Book of World Records for having the longest beard or something and you don't actually have to grow anything, it's like well why not? I'll vote myself rich. These are problems that Wikipedia has had to deal with so far relatively successfully. And there's a level of humility that I think it has to maintain in order to recognize new problems, to recognize where there might the structural forms of bias or discrimination going on. And to be able to endure the more targeted intentional attempts to basically poison the well of truth that Wikipedia at least aspires to be. What would I propose as a longer-term way of shoring it up? I think we should solve a problem with a problem. We haven't really figured out in the early 21st century what to do with kids who are in school for hours at a time every day sort of warehoused in daycare; I think it would be wonderful to make as part of the curriculum from, say, sixth grade onward part of your task and what you'll be graded on is to edit and make the case for your edits to an article on a service like Wikipedia and then we'll have new ranks of people being supervised by teachers who are working on the articles and on the product and that maybe even will apprentice to the norms by which you have an argument over what is true and what isn't. And maybe some of them will choose to continue on as Wikipedians even after the assignment is over. So to me if I think of an advanced civics class, it's great to learn that there are three branches of government and X vote overrides a veto, but having the civics of a collective hallucination like Wikipedia also be part of the curriculum I think would be valuable." ]
wikipedia  2015  jonathanzittrain  theory  practice  governance  praxis  neutrality  fairness  humility  bias  discrimination  education  daycare  curriculum  classideas 
april 2015 by robertogreco
Slack's Stewart Butterfield, in His Own Words | Inc.com
"I'm going to end up with a lot more money than I feel like I'm entitled to given how hard I work. I see all kinds of people work hard all over the world, and some of them are barely making it. I don't just mean subsistence farmers. I mean people in the developed world who work multiple jobs, and because the cost of health care and child care eats up almost all of the living they make. To be clear, I don't have a better way in mind. I think the system we've developed, and the byproduct, of people who founded tech companies getting stupidly rich--I don't have a better alternative. It's something that can be addressed through tax policy. But I'm definitely very conscious of the role that luck and timing and race and gender play in all of this stuff. If I were a woman, it would be twice as hard to do what I do. If I were black in the U.S., it would probably be five times as hard. 

But also, there are early twentysomethings who work here--kids, from my perspective as a 41-year-old--who are going to make a couple million bucks. I think about the shitty jobs I had when I was 23. I worked as hard as they're working these days. There's something untoward, something incorrect--I'm not sure exactly what the word is. Wait, I know: unfair. There's something unfair in that."
stewartbutterfield  2014  startups  money  inequality  wealth  luck  capitalism  work  labor  fairness  unfairness  economics  poverty  race 
april 2015 by robertogreco
Believing that life is fair makes you a terrible person | Oliver Burkeman | Comment is free | The Guardian
"If you’ve been following the news recently, you know that human beings are terrible and everything is appalling. Yet the sheer range of ways we find to sabotage our efforts to make the world a better place continues to astonish. Did you know, for example, that last week’s commemorations of the liberation of Auschwitz may have marginally increased the prevalence of antisemitism in the modern world, despite being partly intended as a warning against its consequences? Or that reading about the eye-popping state of economic inequality could make you less likely to support politicians who want to do something about it?

These are among numerous unsettling implications of the “just-world hypothesis”, a psychological bias explored in a new essay by Nicholas Hune-Brown at Hazlitt [http://penguinrandomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/monstrous-cruelty-just-world ]. The world, obviously, is a manifestly unjust place: people are always meeting fates they didn’t deserve, or not receiving rewards they did deserve for hard work or virtuous behaviour. Yet several decades of research have established that our need to believe otherwise runs deep. Faced with evidence of injustice, we’ll certainly try to alleviate it if we can – but, if we feel powerless to make things right, we’ll do the next best thing, psychologically speaking: we’ll convince ourselves that the world isn’t so unjust after all.

Hence the finding, in a 2009 study, that Holocaust memorials can increase antisemitism. Confronted with an atrocity they otherwise can’t explain, people become slightly more likely, on average, to believe that the victims must have brought it on themselves.

The classic experiment demonstrating the just-world effect took place in 1966, when Melvyn Lerner and Carolyn Simmons showed people what they claimed were live images of a woman receiving agonizing electric shocks for her poor performance in a memory test. Given the option to alleviate her suffering by ending the shocks, almost everybody did so: humans may be terrible, but most of us don’t go around being consciously and deliberately awful. When denied any option to halt her punishment, however – when forced to just sit and watch her apparently suffer – the participants adjusted their opinions of the woman downwards, as if to convince themselves her agony wasn’t so indefensible because she wasn’t really such an innocent victim. “The sight of an innocent person suffering without possibility of reward or compensation”, Lerner and Simmons concluded, “motivated people to devalue the attractiveness of the victim in order to bring about a more appropriate fit between her fate and her character.” It’s easy to see how a similar psychological process might lead, say, to the belief that victims of sexual assault were “asking for it”: if you can convince yourself of that, you can avoid acknowledging the horror of the situation.

What’s truly unsettling about the just-world bias is that while it can have truly unpleasant effects, these follow from what seems like the entirely understandable urge to believe that things happen for a reason. After all, if we didn’t all believe that to some degree, life would be an intolerably chaotic and terrifying nightmare in, which effort and payback were utterly unrelated, and there was no point planning for the future, saving money for retirement or doing anything else in hope of eventual reward. We’d go mad. Surely wanting the world to make a bit more sense than that is eminently forgivable?

Yet, ironically, this desire to believe that things happen for a reason leads to the kinds of positions that help entrench injustice instead of reducing it.

Hune-Brown cites another recent bit of evidence for the phenomenon: people with a strong belief in a just world, he reports, are more likely to oppose affirmative action schemes intended to help women or minorities. You needn’t be explicitly racist or sexist to hold such views, nor committed to a highly individualistic political position (such as libertarianism); the researchers controlled for those. You need only cling to a conviction that the world is basically fair. That might be a pretty naive position, of course – but it’s hard to argue that it’s a hateful one. Similar associations have been found between belief in a just world and a preference for authoritarian political leaders. To shield ourselves psychologically from the terrifying thought that the world is full of innocent people suffering, we endorse politicians and policies more likely to make that suffering worse.

All of which is another reminder of a truth that’s too often forgotten in our era of extreme political polarization and 24/7 internet outrage: wrong opinions – even deeply obnoxious opinions – needn’t necessarily stem from obnoxious motivations. “Victim-blaming” provides the clearest example: barely a day goes by without some commentator being accused (often rightly) of implying that somebody’s suffering was their own fault. That’s a viewpoint that should be condemned, of course: it’s unquestionably unpleasant to suggest that the victims of, say, the Charlie Hebdo killings, brought their fates upon themselves. But the just-world hypothesis shows how such opinions need not be the consequence of a deep character fault on the part of the blamer, or some tiny kernel of evil in their soul. It might simply result from a strong need to feel that the world remains orderly, and that things still make some kind of sense.

Facing the truth – that the world visits violence and poverty and discrimination upon people capriciously, with little regard for what they’ve done to deserve it – is much scarier. Because, if there’s no good explanation for why any specific person is suffering, it’s far harder to escape the frightening conclusion that it could easily be you next."
psychology  oliverburkeman  via:anne  fairness  injustice  victimblaming  violence  poverty  discrimination  suffering  policy  politics  individualism  religion  libertarianism  belief  nicholashune-brown  melvynlerner  carolynsimmons 
february 2015 by robertogreco
'Billionaires' Book Review: Money Can't Buy Happiness | New Republic
"There is plenty more like this to be found, if you look for it. A team of researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute surveyed 43,000 Americans and found that, by some wide margin, the rich were more likely to shoplift than the poor. Another study, by a coalition of nonprofits called the Independent Sector, revealed that people with incomes below twenty-five grand give away, on average, 4.2 percent of their income, while those earning more than 150 grand a year give away only 2.7 percent. A UCLA neuroscientist named Keely Muscatell has published an interesting paper showing that wealth quiets the nerves in the brain associated with empathy: if you show rich people and poor people pictures of kids with cancer, the poor people’s brains exhibit a great deal more activity than the rich people’s. (An inability to empathize with others has just got to be a disadvantage for any rich person seeking political office, at least outside of New York City.) “As you move up the class ladder,” says Keltner, “you are more likely to violate the rules of the road, to lie, to cheat, to take candy from kids, to shoplift, and to be tightfisted in giving to others. Straightforward economic analyses have trouble making sense of this pattern of results.”

There is an obvious chicken-and-egg question to ask here. But it is beginning to seem that the problem isn’t that the kind of people who wind up on the pleasant side of inequality suffer from some moral disability that gives them a market edge. The problem is caused by the inequality itself: it triggers a chemical reaction in the privileged few. It tilts their brains. It causes them to be less likely to care about anyone but themselves or to experience the moral sentiments needed to be a decent citizen.

Or even a happy one. Not long ago an enterprising professor at the Harvard Business School named Mike Norton persuaded a big investment bank to let him survey the bank’s rich clients. (The poor people in the survey were millionaires.) In a forthcoming paper, Norton and his colleagues track the effects of getting money on the happiness of people who already have a lot of it: a rich person getting even richer experiences zero gain in happiness. That’s not all that surprising; it’s what Norton asked next that led to an interesting insight. He asked these rich people how happy they were at any given moment. Then he asked them how much money they would need to be even happier. “All of them said they needed two to three times more than they had to feel happier,” says Norton. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that money, above a certain modest sum, does not have the power to buy happiness, and yet even very rich people continue to believe that it does: the happiness will come from the money they don’t yet have. To the general rule that money, above a certain low level, cannot buy happiness there is one exception. “While spending money upon oneself does nothing for one’s happiness,” says Norton, “spending it on others increases happiness.”

If the Harvard Business School is now making a home for research exposing the folly of a life devoted to endless material ambition, something in the world has changed—or is changing. And I think it is: there is a growing awareness that the yawning gap between rich and poor is no longer a matter of simple justice but also the enemy of economic success and human happiness. It’s not just bad for the poor. It’s also bad for the rich. It’s funny, when you think about it, how many rich people don’t know this. But they are not idiots; they can learn. Many even possess the self-awareness to correct for whatever tricks their brain chemicals seek to play on them; some of them already do it. When you control a lot more than your share of the Fruit Loops, there really isn’t much doubt about what you should do with them, for your own good. You just need to be reminded, loudly and often."
behavior  wealth  politics  inequality  influence  policy  psychology  us  2014  michaellewis  creativity  power  cheating  morality  fairness  ethics  happiness 
november 2014 by robertogreco
To Divide the Rent, Start With a Triangle - NYTimes.com
"Sperner’s lemma can help us find a fully labeled triangle, but how does that divide rent? Building on the work of two other mathematicians, Forest Simmons and Michael Starbird, Dr. Su realized that the small, fully labeled triangle could represent the rooms and prices in a hypothetical apartment. Based on people’s decisions to label the triangles at each interior corner, an algorithm could be used to follow a winding path through an infinite field of simplexes — triangles extended into any number of dimensions — starting from the largest and traveling into its interior in search of a point on the inside where everybody would choose a different room."
math  splitting  sharing  rent  2014  division  fairness  money  howto  spliddit  arielprocaccia  francissu  sperner'slemma  forestsimmons  michaelstarbird 
april 2014 by robertogreco
Chokwe Lumumba: Remembering "America’s Most Revolutionary Mayor" | Democracy Now!
"AMY GOODMAN: That was Jamie Scott and, before that, Gladys Scott, released from jail after 16 years in prison for an $11 robbery. Standing next to them was Chokwe Lumumba, their attorney at the time, now mayor—well, until yesterday. His sudden death is why we’re talking about him today, though we interviewed him the day after he was elected. Also standing there was Ben Jealous, former president and CEO of the NAACP, who recently wrote a piece for The Huffington Post called "Remembering Chokwe Lumumba." Remember him for us, Ben.

BENJAMIN JEALOUS: Sure. Well, you know, that was the fourth or fifth time we had stood next to people that we had worked together to free from prison over the last 20 years. And that was what was so remarkable about Chokwe. I mean, he was a man who was, you know, a true man, if you will. He was active in his church. He had a great marriage to his wife. He had two wonderful kids that he poured all of his love into. He was a well-respected coach. He was an incredible lawyer.

And he chose his—and he also was, you know, somebody with very strong ideals. And he chose to live and practice those ideals on the ground in one of the poorest places in our country. And he brought all of those things with him into the courtroom—all the compassion, all the insight, all his skill as a lawyer—on behalf of the poorest people in the state. And that’s ultimately why Bill and Derrick Johnson, the president of the NAACP in Mississippi, and so many others, they say he was drafted to run for mayor, because everybody had basically fallen in love—let me put it this way: An overwhelming majority of Jackson—I won’t say everybody, because there were definitely some people who were on the other side—but an overwhelming majority of Jackson, black and white, had fallen in love with Chokwe over the years that he had lived in town, because he was just such a good person. And you knew in your heart, when you live in Jackson, that the toughest thing in Mississippi to be is to be poor and black and in court without good counsel. And he would, at oftentimes risk to his own financial stability, defend anyone who he thought he could help, who he thought needed help, and, most importantly, who he was convinced that nobody else would help.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to our interview with Chokwe Lumumba on Democracy Now! the day after he was elected. We talked to him June 6th. I asked him about the FBI’s decision last year to place his former client, Assata Shakur, on the Most Wanted Terrorists list. But before we play that clip, I wanted to ask you, Ben, about the media coverage, both of Chokwe Lumumba, his election, and the significance of the man who some who called the most revolutionary mayor in America—the lack of the coverage. Last night, I was watching the networks, and I opened The New York Times today, the actual paper edition, and I didn’t see a reference. Last night watching MSNBC for hours, now, I didn’t watch every single second, so I might have missed something, but I did not see a reference. As Bill Chandler said, he died late yesterday afternoon.

BENJAMIN JEALOUS: Yeah. So, you know, I know that I saw something in the Times this morning online.

AMY GOODMAN: Online, yes.

BENJAMIN JEALOUS: Yeah, I mean, Chokwe—I mean, look, Chokwe is somebody who you have to give this much time to really talk about. This is a man who lived, if you will, sort of multiple journeys in his life and who was quixotic to people because, on the one hand, you could easily stereotype him as being some sort of radical—he would say he was a radical, because he didn’t see that as being a bad thing. You know, he was somebody who thought that, frankly, having ideals and practicing them in this country full of so much hypocrisy was a radical thing. But he was also somebody who was an extremely committed mayor, very good at working across the aisle, even in his short tenure, with people in the business community, in the most conservative corners of the city, if you will. And he was somebody who at the end of the day, yes, stood up for black people, but was ultimately committed to fairness for everyone in our country.

And so, you know, for, I think, many in the media who sort of deal in sound bites, there’s just too much there to quickly understand in 30 seconds, and so they move on. But he’s ultimately the type of person that we need to understand better in our country, because our country ultimate is greatest, if you will, because of the contributions of idealists over the years who, yes, may have staked a far-out position at times in their lives, but ultimately served to pull our country closer to its own closely held ideals of fairness and equality and justice and the universal dignity of all humanity."
chokwelumumba  socialjustice  leadership  2014  obituaries  ideals  idealism  praxis  government  policy  politics  law  jackson  alabama  benjaminjealous  amygoodman  akinyeleumoja  kwamekenyatta  fairness  equality  civilrights  justice  us  chokweantarlumumba 
february 2014 by robertogreco
Against Meritocracy | Gerry Canavan
"Basically all liberal interventions in the name of fairness intervene too late, and thus intensify rather than diminish class difference.

And of course the "merit" paradox goes all the way to the level of the gene, and is thus totally irresolvable under liberalism.

The only choice is a world where all people have decent lives regardless of any fantasy of "merit" or "desert."

Determinisms (genetic, epigenetic, environmental) are together such decisive disproofs of liberal meritocracy that they can't be discussed.

Class is a miracle solvent for "merit": it boosts abilities of the rich while muting disadvantages, while doing exact opposite for the poor."
liberalism  neoliberalism  determinism  meritocracy  gerrycanavan  2013  class  economics  advantages  disadvantages  fairness  poverty  education  wealth  wealthdistribution  politics 
august 2013 by robertogreco
Riot after Chinese teachers try to stop pupils cheating - Telegraph
"What should have been a hushed scene of 800 Chinese students diligently sitting their university entrance exams erupted into siege warfare after invigilators tried to stop them from cheating."



"By late afternoon, the invigilators were trapped in a set of school offices, as groups of students pelted the windows with rocks. Outside, an angry mob of more than 2,000 people had gathered to vent its rage, smashing cars and chanting: "We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat.""

[via: http://notes.husk.org/post/53797705544/schools-cheating-fairness-china ]
china  education  cheating  meritocracy  protest  2013  standardizedtesting  fairness 
june 2013 by robertogreco
Luke's Commonplace Book
"America is, and always has been, undecided about whether it will be the United States of Tom or the United States of Huck. The United States of Tom looks at misery and says: Hey, I didn’t do it. It looks at inequity and says: All my life I busted my butt to get where I am, so don’t come crying to me. Tom likes kings, codified nobility, unquestioned privilege. Huck likes people, fair play, spreading the truck around. Whereas Tom knows, Huck wonders. Whereas Huck hopes, Tom presumes. Whereas Huck cares, Tom denies. These two parts of the American Psyche have been at war since the beginning of the nation, and come to think of it, these two parts of the World Psyche have been at war since the beginning of the world, and the hope of the nation and of the world is to embrace the Huck part and send the Tom part back up the river, where it belongs."

— George Saunders in The Braindead Megaphone
georgesaunders  2013  huckleberryfinn  tomsawyer  marktwain  us  misery  inequity  nobility  privilege  fairness  fairplay  wondering  wonder  knowing  knowledge  hope  caring  care  worldpsyche  politics  society  social  liberalism  libertarianism 
may 2013 by robertogreco
Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube
"Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is."
inequality  incomeinequality  wealth  us  wealthdistribution  video  2012  infographics  perception  fairness  income  economics  finance  reality 
march 2013 by robertogreco
What if the Secret to Success Is Failure? - NYTimes.com
"…concerns about a character program…comprised only those kind of nice-guy values. “The danger w/ character is if you just revert to these general terms—respect, honesty, tolerance—it seems really vague. If I stand in front of kids & just say, ‘It’s really important for you to respect each other,’…they glaze over. But if you say, ‘Well, actually you need to exhibit self-control,’ or you explain the value of social intelligence—this will help you collaborate more effectively —…it seems…more tangible.”…

“Sure, a trait can backfire. Too much grit…you start to lose ability to have empathy for other people. If you’re so gritty that you don’t understand why everyone’s complaining about how hard things are, because nothing’s hard for you, because you’re Mr. Grit, you’re going to have a hard time being kind. Even love—being too loving might make you the kind of person who can get played…character is something you have to be careful about…strengths can become character weaknesses.”
education  character  tcsnmy  lcproject  teaching  learning  grading  books  success  failure  kipp  schools  workethic  kindness  empathy  dominicrandolph  davidlevin  michaelfeinberg  martinseligman  christopherpeterson  2011  psychology  longterm  grit  gritscale  angeladuckworth  iq  wholecandidatescore  grades  self-control  socialintelligence  gratitude  curiosity  optimism  zest  gpa  cpa  character-pointaverage  middle-classvalues  self-regulation  interpersonal  love  humor  beauty  bravery  citizenship  fairness  integrity  wisdom  from delicious
september 2011 by robertogreco
The Unselfish Gene - Harvard Business Review
"Executives, like most other people, have long believed that human beings are interested only in advancing their material interests.

However, recent research in evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, political science, and experimental economics suggests that people behave far less selfishly than most assume. Evolutionary biologists and psychologists have even found neural and, possibly, genetic evidence of a human predisposition to cooperate.

These findings suggest that instead of using controls or carrots and sticks to motivate people, companies should use systems that rely on engagement and a sense of common purpose.

Several levers can help executives build cooperative systems: encouraging communication, ensuring authentic framing, fostering empathy and solidarity, guaranteeing fairness and morality, using rewards and punishments that appeal to intrinsic motivations, relying on reputation and reciprocity, and ensuring flexibility."
business  motivation  intrinsicmotivation  reciprocity  theunselfishgene  cooperation  wikipedia  empathy  solidarity  fairness  morality  human  humanism  tcsnmy  unschooling  deschooling  rewards  punishment  reputation  flexibility  cooperativism  cooperativesystems  engagement  purpose  commonpurpose  evolutionarybiology  biology  psychology  sociology  politicalscience  experimentaleconomics  economics  evolutionarypsychology  yochaibenkler  complexity  simplicity  self-interest  selfishness  behavior  extrinsicmotivation  2011  from delicious
july 2011 by robertogreco
What is Your Kryptonite? - Tech4Teachers
"Every superhero has a weakness. For Superman, it’s Kryptonite…As a teacher & tech leader, what is your Kryptonite? Perhaps it’s one of these…

1. Internet Filters…

2. Consistency & Fairness – Ever been told that your class can’t do something unless all the other classes decide to do it too? How often do we sacrifice creativity & innovation for the sake of consistency?

Superheros are sometimes required to go solo, moving forward where others fear to tread. Lead by example…

3. The “Almighty” Inflexible Schedule – Does your education dictate your schedule, or does your schedule dictate the education?…

4. Lack of Administrative Support – Do you live in constant fear of trying something new or innovative with your students because you know that if it doesn’t work or if someone complains that you’ll be left “hanging out to dry” by your principal or administrator?

Superheros must sometimes work outside the law to do what is right.

5. Fear of Failure…"
education  inmyexperience  teaching  tcsnmy  schools  learning  technology  failure  fear  administration  management  schedules  scheduling  inflexibility  filters  consistency  fairness  beenthere  via:rushtheiceberg  from delicious
july 2011 by robertogreco
Little Things of Great Importance | This Moi
[Wayback link: https://web.archive.org/web/20110123052115/http://www.thismoi.com/2010/11/little-things-of-great-importance/ ]

"It would be easy to say, that no one *needs* a piece of lemon loaf, and you might be correct, but maybe *this* boy *did*. Maybe he had a very real need for a piece of iced lemon loaf. Maybe he needed it for comfort. Maybe he needed it for power. Maybe he needed it for the Indian in his cupboard that would only eat iced lemon loaf and would starve to death if he didn’t get it for him. Maybe he had a whole wealth of emotional difficulties or mental challenges I didn’t know about. Who knows? Do you? I don’t…

…It was a panic that I remember having experienced sometimes. Perhaps you do too. The panic in realizing that you have no power at all. You are a child and you are powerless. There is nothing you can do.

I understand it may be extremely hard for many to have sympathy for a little white western boy deprived of a sweet as this is precisely what I would say if I had not observed the child in person, but the look  on his face is a universal one: “Life is not fair”."
powerlessness  childhood  kartinarichardson  fairness  poetry  life  empathy  power  insignificance  frustration  emotions  from delicious
july 2011 by robertogreco
Faulty Towers: The Crisis in Higher Education | The Nation
"…leadership will have to come from somewhere else, as well. Just as in society as a whole, the academic upper middle class needs to rethink its alliances. Its dignity will not survive forever if it doesn’t fight for that of everyone below it in the academic hierarchy. For all its pretensions to public importance…the professoriate is awfully quiet, essentially nonexistent as a collective voice. If academia is going to once again become a decent place to work, if our best young minds are going to be attracted back to the profession, if higher education is going to be reclaimed as part of the American promise, if teaching and research are going to make the country strong again, then professors need to get off their backsides and organize: department by department, institution to institution, state by state and across the nation as a whole. Tenured professors enjoy the strongest speech protections in society. It’s time they started using them."
education  culture  teaching  politics  economics  highereducation  highered  hierarchy  society  voice  speakingout  2011  williamderesiewicz  colleges  universities  labor  gradschool  money  efficiency  markets  fairness  inequality  inequity  disparity  academia  liberalarts  from delicious
may 2011 by robertogreco
Tax property, not people, for a fairer society | Business | The Guardian
"Levies on land values do not depress or distort wealth creation and are easy to assess, cheap to collect and hard to avoid"<br />
<br />
"So not only do we get a tax that is easy and cheap to collect, it would be difficult for the super rich to avoid with their offshore trusts and company ownership structures, and it would also lower the value of the asset that is stifling social mobility – property."
2011  taxes  taxation  propertytax  property  land  society  fairness  wealth  power  control  vat  europe  oecd  lvt  landvaluetax  from delicious
may 2011 by robertogreco
The Crefeld School: Progressive Education » Essential Questions
"What are the facts?…shows they are informed, critical thinkers who seek facts to support a position…try to get to the bottom of things.

Says who? They are critical thinkers who consider diverse points of view & bias…discriminating readers & viewers.

So what? They put things in perspective, prioritizing issues.

What if? They are able to imagine alternatives…willing to consider multiple solutions to problems.

Is it fair? They are commited to equity & fairness, not just for themselves, but also for others…committed to common good.

What do YOU think? They engage others in a dialogue about the issues, seeking their points of view.…listen to alternative points of view, seeking to understand.

How can I help? They consider how they can contribute to the common good, make a decision, & act.

Would you lend me a hand? They recognize that they are part of an inter-dependent community…not afraid to seek help from their community members…tap into the strength of the community."
crefeldschool  philadelphia  education  schools  essentialquestions  tcsnmy  lcproject  criticalthinking  community  bias  openminded  fairness  equity  commongood  coalitionofessentialschools  understanding  decisionmaking  actionminded  interdependence  progressive  listening  from delicious
may 2011 by robertogreco
potlatch: from economics to violence
"Bonuses have reached a scale now where they can quite legitimately be understood as a fiscal issue. Once again, the concept of 'fairness' obscures the issue. The fact that a banker earns in 15 minutes what a cleaner earns in a year (or whatever) is mind-boggling, but slightly distracting from the political logic. More significantly, next month banks will pay out £7bn in bonuses to their own staff, earned through trades and fees earned as intermediaries. Given that this is occurring in a semi-nationalised, government-backed industry, it is surely far more relevant to compare that £7bn to the £3bn being cut from university tuition. "
economics  politics  banking  violence  funding  education  highereducation  highered  disparity  bonuses  2010  uk  nationalization  fairness  power  class  society  from delicious
december 2010 by robertogreco
Uniform National Standards Are Not Equal - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com
"The top-down, test-driven, corporate-styled “accountability” movement -- featuring prescriptive state standards -- has already done incalculable damage to our children’s classrooms, particularly in low-income neighborhoods. Just ask a teacher. It’s no coincidence that the most enthusiastic proponents of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, etc., tend to be those who know the least about how kids learn. And now they’re telling us that a single group of people should shape the goals and curriculum of every public school in the country.

What they don’t understand is that uniformity isn’t the same thing as excellence; high standards don’t require common standards. And neither does uniformity promote equity. One-size-fits-all instructional demands actually offer the illusion of fairness, setting back the cause of genuine equity."

[It's not long. Read the rest.]
alfiekohn  education  learning  national  standards  us  rttt  nclb  policy  schools  politics  competitiveness  equity  testing  accountability  standardization  standardizedtesting  tcsnmy  uniformity  commoncore  onesizefitsall  fairness 
july 2010 by robertogreco
Let’s Talk About Football • Quisby
"It’s easy to say it’s just part of the game, but it doesn’t change the fact that football is inherently unfair and classless. I’m not interested in watching a sport where skill is just one part of the equation in determining winners. Despite my assertions above, the same can be true of most sports, but nowhere is it more obvious and ever present than football." [Exhibit A demonstrating how Ian Bogost nailed this one: [A] Americans "are obsessed with fairness and transcendental truth," while [B] the rest of world is OK with "the unfairness and randomness in human experience": http://www.bogost.com/blog/there_are_no_blown_calls.shtml ] [Exhibit B, a response to this post, is at: http://www.matthewculnane.co.uk/post/753782202/nostrich-lets-talk-about-football ]
football  soccer  sports  fairness  worldcup  2010  rules  futbol 
july 2010 by robertogreco
Ian Bogost - There are no Blown Calls in Football
"issue is not that World Cup football suffers from blown calls. The issue is that in WC football blown calls do not exist as a concept in the game. Short of financial collusion or threat, refs' perspective on game is a part of the game, no different than quality of a cross or accuracy of a shot on goal. This is quite a different attitude than other sports take regarding officiating.

The idea that a sport could so willingly & systemically embrace perspective is beautiful to me. Not only because it highlights the changing specificity of moment-to-moment configurations of player, ball & officials, but also because it underscores the role of unfairness & randomness in human experience. Perhaps this is 1 reason why Americans dislike soccer so much: we are obsessed with fairness & transcendental truth, while football shows us that the universe is cruel not (just) through God's will, but because so many factors come into play all at once that it's impossible to account for them all."
football  worldcup  ianbogost  2010  fairness  us  perspective  empathy  truth  control  randomness  humanexperience  experience  world  fate  coincidence  ambiguity  complexity  americahatesgray  sports 
july 2010 by robertogreco
The Just-World Fallacy « You Are Not So Smart
"The Misconception: People who are losing at the game of life must have done something to deserve it.
prejudice  psychology  fairness  fallacy  justice  life  philosophy  politics  poverty  society  sociology  ethics  delusion  control  via:kottke 
june 2010 by robertogreco
Philip K. Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system | Video on TED.com
"The land of the free has become a legal minefield, says Philip K. Howard -- especially for teachers and doctors, whose work has been paralyzed by fear of suits. What's the answer? A lawyer himself, Howard has four propositions for simplifying US law."
broken  innovation  reform  health  law  simplicity  risk  authority  us  schools  medicine  teaching  learning  education  philiphoward  trust  constitution  values  principles  rules  ted  fear  freedom  lawsuits  gamechanging  fairness  playgrounds  passion  care  waste  money  productivity  decisionmaking  hiring  judgement  paralysis  dueprocess  rights  threats  government  litigation  recess  warnings  warninglabels  labels  psychology  society 
february 2010 by robertogreco
Maeda's SIMPLICITY: Openly Prioritize
"interesting distinction between fairness versus policy...clear policy usually makes everything open and transparent..real socialism at work, everyone gets same deal...closed process...possible to give different deals to different people"
administration  organizations  management  fairness  policy  work  gamechanging  johnmaeda 
november 2007 by robertogreco

related tags

academia  accountability  acquiescence  actionminded  administration  admissions  advantages  agency  akinyeleumoja  alabama  alfiekohn  altgdp  ambiguity  americahatesgray  amygoodman  ancestors  angeladuckworth  appreciation  arielprocaccia  art  artschool  artschools  assessment  attitudes  authority  banking  beauty  beenthere  behavior  belief  benjaminjealous  bias  biology  bonuses  books  boredom  bravery  broken  business  canon  capitalism  care  caring  carolynsimmons  character  character-pointaverage  cheating  childhood  china  chokweantarlumumba  chokwelumumba  christopherpeterson  citizenship  civilrights  class  classideas  classroommanagment  coalitionofessentialschools  coercion  coincidence  collaboration  colleges  commoncore  commongood  commonpurpose  community  competition  competitiveness  complexity  confidence  consistency  constitution  control  cooperation  cooperativesystems  cooperativism  cornelwest  courage  cpa  creativity  crefeldschool  crime  criminaljustice  criticalpedagogy  criticalthinking  criticism  culture  curiosity  curriculum  davidlevin  daycare  decency  decisionmaking  decolonization  delusion  democracy  deschooling  determinism  dignity  disadvantages  discrimination  disparity  diversity  division  dominicrandolph  dueprocess  economics  education  efficiency  egalitarianism  elitism  emotions  empathy  engagement  entitlement  equality  equity  essentialquestions  ethics  etiquette  europe  evolutionarybiology  evolutionarypsychology  expectations  experience  experimentaleconomics  extrinsicmotivation  failure  fairness  fairplay  fallacy  fate  fear  filters  finance  flexibility  football  forestsimmons  francissu  freddiedeboer  freedom  frustration  funding  futbol  gamechanging  generations  gentleness  geny  georgesaunders  gerrycanavan  governance  government  gpa  grades  grading  gradschool  gratitude  grit  gritscale  groups  happiness  health  hierarchy  highered  highereducation  hiring  homogeneity  hope  horizontality  howto  howwelearn  huckleberryfinn  human  humanexperience  humanism  humility  humor  ianbogost  idealism  ideals  impatience  imperialism  impulsivity  inclusion  inclusivity  income  incomeinequality  individualism  inequality  inequity  inflexibility  influence  infographics  injustice  inmyexperience  innovation  insignificance  instruction  integrity  interdependence  interpersonal  intrinsicmotivation  iq  jackson  johnmaeda  jonathanzittrain  judgement  justice  kartinarichardson  kindness  kipp  knowing  knowledge  korea  kwamekenyatta  labels  labor  land  landvaluetax  law  lawsuits  lcproject  leadership  learning  leftism  legacy  liberalarts  liberalism  libertarianism  life  listening  litigation  longterm  love  luck  lvt  mahabali  management  manners  markets  marktwain  marthaburtis  martinseligman  materialism  math  mathematics  medicine  melvynlerner  merit  meritocracy  michaelfeinberg  michaellewis  michaelstarbird  middle-classvalues  militancy  militanttenderness  militarism  militarization  millennials  misery  money  morality  motivation  nathanrobinson  national  nationalization  nclb  nelsonmandela  neoliberalism  neutrality  newark  nicholashune-brown  nobility  obituaries  objectivity  oecd  oliverburkeman  onesizefitsall  oped  openminded  openstudioproject  opinion  optimism  organizations  overconfidence  paralysis  passion  patrickconner  paulofreire  pedagogy  perception  perspective  philadelphia  philiphoward  philosophy  piety  playgrounds  poetry  policy  politicalscience  politics  poverty  power  powerlessness  practice  praxis  prejudice  principles  privatization  privilege  proceduraljustice  productivity  progressive  property  propertytax  protest  psychology  punishment  purpose  race  radicalgentleness  radicalism  randomness  ranking  reality  recess  reciprocity  reform  religion  rent  represenation  reputation  respect  rewards  rights  risk  rttt  rubrics  rules  samianehrez  sat  schedules  scheduling  school  schooldesign  schools  seanmorris  selectivity  self-awareness  self-control  self-esteem  self-interest  self-regulation  selfimage  selfishness  seoul  sharing  sherrispelic  simplicity  soccer  social  socialintelligence  socialism  socialjustice  society  sociology  solidarity  soulcraft  southkorea  speakingout  sperner'slemma  spliddit  splitting  sports  standardization  standardizedtesting  standards  startups  statecraft  stewartbutterfield  stigma  subjectivity  subversivesweetness  success  suffering  sweetness  syllabi  syllabus  taeyoonchoi  taxation  taxes  tcsnmy  teaching  technology  ted  tenderness  terror  testing  theory  theunselfishgene  threats  tomsawyer  trauma  trust  truth  uk  uncertaintyschool  understanding  unfairness  uniformity  universities  unlearning  unschooling  us  values  vat  via:ablerism  via:anne  via:kottke  via:rushtheiceberg  victimblaming  victoriapratt  video  violence  voice  warninglabels  warnings  waste  wealth  wealthdistribution  wholecandidatescore  wikipedia  williamderesiewicz  wisdom  wonder  wondering  work  workethic  world  worldcup  worldpsyche  xenophobia  yochaibenkler  zest 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: