I haven't read Kelly's book, but I think there are a few problems with wielding a crude political analogy (feudalism) that entails all sorts of nasty connotations. Whatever your views on capitalism or redistribution, I think we can all agree that workers aren't serfs - they can leave their jobs and go elsewhere. Moreover, shareholders actually contribute something useful to the running of a corporation (capital and, at least theoretically, oversight), which is more than can be said of Medieval Europe's landed gentry.
We may have divergent views on corporations or corporate governance, but I don't think you or similarly situated critics do yourselves any favors by resorting to hyperbolic terms like "serfdom" to describe an economic system is wildly different from feudalism.
Incidentally, I think the strongest argument against your vision of distributism is the prudential case against dramatic economic changes/wealth transfers from my earlier post.
I think Bunch is right - The Occidental Quarterly sounds absolutely nutty:
"Holocaust narratives are filled with tales of thousands of Jews herded to their doom by relative handfuls of Germans and their collaborators. Although this sheep-like behavior seems rather unlike the hyper-aggressive and unruly Jews of my acquaintance, most people accept it at face value and then wonder: What was wrong with these people? Why didn’t they fight back?"
Are we sure Cowen is linking to this review approvingly, though? Or is he just remarking on the movie's fascistic overtones?
I disagree re: Collinsworth. He's always come off as a knowledgeable, likable dude, and he sounds positively brilliant compared to Madden's final few seasons.
I mean, I'm not a big fan of Goldberg, but having written a book about fascism, I'm sure he's come up with some sort of refutation for this and similar charges. I kind of buy the idea Mussolini's own ideology was so incoherent that we shouldn't draw conclusions from his grandiose pronouncements.
I think you need to distinguish between systematically measuring performance and measuring performance, period. I'm not suggesting that *every* teacher needs to be evaluated using the same methodology; simply that schools experiment with different methods (some subjective, others more statistically rigorous) to determine teacher performance. My broader point is that every other business/government agency makes at least some effort to figure out how well employees are performing, and I'm not sure why schools don't take a similar approach.
I agree that there are a lot of conceptual and structural barriers to adopting merits pay; that's why I'm in favor of experimentation on the state and local level. Let a hundred merit pay-inspired flowers bloom, I say.
As for your concerns about the shortage of teachers, I think that boosting teacher pay would do a lot to make up for that shortfall.
Interesting point, and I can see why you'd be concerned. Here's my counter-argument: shouldn't we place more value in educators who teach "core" subjects like math and science? I'm not sure merit pay would automatically make certain teachers second-class citizens, but I wonder if there's something to the idea that some subjects deserve more and better paid educators.
A collective rewards program might be worth trying. As I've written earlier, I think we should encourage local experimentation. However, there are some recent studies that suggest better student performance is correlated with merit pay for teachers:
As a general rule, I find data more persuasive than anecdotes.
Look, I buy that classroom performance varies wildly from year to year. But I don't think this means that it's impossible to identify good teachers for the purposes of compensation. It's also worth noting that there are very teacher-friendly options for implementing merit pay out there, like the two track program I mentioned earlier that preserves a tenure-based option.
Finally, we're talking about trying merit pay in failing school systems like DC. Is experimenting with performance-based pay such a risk when the status quo simply isn't working anyway? Your cost-benefit analysis just doesn't make sense to me.
Wow - I saw this and immediately said to myself, "Yeah, that sounds about right." It's weird how social networks - which really don't have any traditional status symbols (no way to show off your designer jeans online) - reflect preexisting social divides.
Agree that teacher quality is difficult to measure, but it's definitely not impossible, and making the effort is certainly better than sticking with the status quo. From the HuffPo piece I link to:
"Rhee's argument in favor of aggressive weeding out of teachers who fail to achieve performance benchmarks has received strong support from studies conducted for the Consortium for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE) of students in Texas and Tennessee.
The CREATE studies showed remarkable differences in student achievement and performance depending on the quality of the teachers. For example, the first graph shows the percentile math ranking of students with 'effective' teachers rising 21 points, from 55 to 76, from the start of the third grade to the end of the fifth grade. In contrast, those with 'poor' or 'ineffective' teachers saw their percentile rankings drop by 20 points, from 57 to 27."
Moreover, it is possible to control for adverse demographic factors when evaluating teacher performance:
Nicely put, Dan. But hasn't "homosexual" largely been replaced by "gay," at least in popular culture?
Maybe that wasn't the best example, but this thesis is replete with terms - fornicator, cohabitators etc. - that really seem awkward and anachronistic.
As for your point about working women in the '80s, I suspect social conservatives are a decade a two behind every major cultural upheaval.
Maybe my post wasn't clear, but I am definitely in favor of investigating torture. I'm not a liberal, but my question was aimed at liberals who (like me) oppose torture and want to see it stopped: would you be willing to sacrifice an important part of the progressive legislative agenda to see that this happens?
As I said above, I think there's a good chance that a torture investigation - however necessary - would incur huge costs in terms of Democratic political capital and popularity. My question is whether Dems are willing to bear these costs.
My point is that a divisive torture investigation will drain popularity and political capital from the Dems, not alienate moderate Republicans who might otherwise support their agenda.
On “(Economic) Selfhood not Serfhood”
I haven't read Kelly's book, but I think there are a few problems with wielding a crude political analogy (feudalism) that entails all sorts of nasty connotations. Whatever your views on capitalism or redistribution, I think we can all agree that workers aren't serfs - they can leave their jobs and go elsewhere. Moreover, shareholders actually contribute something useful to the running of a corporation (capital and, at least theoretically, oversight), which is more than can be said of Medieval Europe's landed gentry.
We may have divergent views on corporations or corporate governance, but I don't think you or similarly situated critics do yourselves any favors by resorting to hyperbolic terms like "serfdom" to describe an economic system is wildly different from feudalism.
Incidentally, I think the strongest argument against your vision of distributism is the prudential case against dramatic economic changes/wealth transfers from my earlier post.
On “Threat Level Midnight”
You can never go wrong with a Michael Scott reference, Kyle.
On “Inglourious Basterds (spoiler alert)”
I think Bunch is right - The Occidental Quarterly sounds absolutely nutty:
"Holocaust narratives are filled with tales of thousands of Jews herded to their doom by relative handfuls of Germans and their collaborators. Although this sheep-like behavior seems rather unlike the hyper-aggressive and unruly Jews of my acquaintance, most people accept it at face value and then wonder: What was wrong with these people? Why didn’t they fight back?"
Are we sure Cowen is linking to this review approvingly, though? Or is he just remarking on the movie's fascistic overtones?
On “I think the best part about the Bears-Packers game . . .”
I disagree re: Collinsworth. He's always come off as a knowledgeable, likable dude, and he sounds positively brilliant compared to Madden's final few seasons.
"
And now Urlacher's out for the season. I really feel for Chicago fans right about now.
On “Seriously?”
I haven't read Bryson, but I'm pretty much for anything that gets Paul Bettany on screen. I mean, dude made "Wimbledon" watchable.
On “from the archives”
I mean, I'm not a big fan of Goldberg, but having written a book about fascism, I'm sure he's come up with some sort of refutation for this and similar charges. I kind of buy the idea Mussolini's own ideology was so incoherent that we shouldn't draw conclusions from his grandiose pronouncements.
On “Merit Pay, continued”
Although you're right that I should have used more qualifiers when describing that study on teacher performance.
"
I think you need to distinguish between systematically measuring performance and measuring performance, period. I'm not suggesting that *every* teacher needs to be evaluated using the same methodology; simply that schools experiment with different methods (some subjective, others more statistically rigorous) to determine teacher performance. My broader point is that every other business/government agency makes at least some effort to figure out how well employees are performing, and I'm not sure why schools don't take a similar approach.
On “Why not give merit pay a shot?”
Pat Calahan -
I agree that there are a lot of conceptual and structural barriers to adopting merits pay; that's why I'm in favor of experimentation on the state and local level. Let a hundred merit pay-inspired flowers bloom, I say.
As for your concerns about the shortage of teachers, I think that boosting teacher pay would do a lot to make up for that shortfall.
On “Birthers vs. Truthers”
Fair enough.
On “Why not give merit pay a shot?”
Steve -
Interesting point, and I can see why you'd be concerned. Here's my counter-argument: shouldn't we place more value in educators who teach "core" subjects like math and science? I'm not sure merit pay would automatically make certain teachers second-class citizens, but I wonder if there's something to the idea that some subjects deserve more and better paid educators.
On “Merit Pay, continued”
A collective rewards program might be worth trying. As I've written earlier, I think we should encourage local experimentation. However, there are some recent studies that suggest better student performance is correlated with merit pay for teachers:
http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/kenny/documents/Teach_incent_pap.pdf
"
Really, Jim? Military promotions aren't based on merit?
"
As a general rule, I find data more persuasive than anecdotes.
Look, I buy that classroom performance varies wildly from year to year. But I don't think this means that it's impossible to identify good teachers for the purposes of compensation. It's also worth noting that there are very teacher-friendly options for implementing merit pay out there, like the two track program I mentioned earlier that preserves a tenure-based option.
Finally, we're talking about trying merit pay in failing school systems like DC. Is experimenting with performance-based pay such a risk when the status quo simply isn't working anyway? Your cost-benefit analysis just doesn't make sense to me.
On “obligatory reaction post on Obama’s healthcare address”
Mike -
The Afrocentric Marxist stuff was intentional hyperbole. Although I do hear the 'socialism' stuff thrown around quite a bit.
On “Let’s all go back to MySpace.”
Wow - I saw this and immediately said to myself, "Yeah, that sounds about right." It's weird how social networks - which really don't have any traditional status symbols (no way to show off your designer jeans online) - reflect preexisting social divides.
On “Why not give merit pay a shot?”
Pat Calahan -
Agree that teacher quality is difficult to measure, but it's definitely not impossible, and making the effort is certainly better than sticking with the status quo. From the HuffPo piece I link to:
"Rhee's argument in favor of aggressive weeding out of teachers who fail to achieve performance benchmarks has received strong support from studies conducted for the Consortium for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation (CREATE) of students in Texas and Tennessee.
The CREATE studies showed remarkable differences in student achievement and performance depending on the quality of the teachers. For example, the first graph shows the percentile math ranking of students with 'effective' teachers rising 21 points, from 55 to 76, from the start of the third grade to the end of the fifth grade. In contrast, those with 'poor' or 'ineffective' teachers saw their percentile rankings drop by 20 points, from 57 to 27."
Moreover, it is possible to control for adverse demographic factors when evaluating teacher performance:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwppe/0304002.html
"
Yeah, I pretty much had the exact same reaction.
On “McDonnell’s thesis”
Nicely put, Dan. But hasn't "homosexual" largely been replaced by "gay," at least in popular culture?
Maybe that wasn't the best example, but this thesis is replete with terms - fornicator, cohabitators etc. - that really seem awkward and anachronistic.
As for your point about working women in the '80s, I suspect social conservatives are a decade a two behind every major cultural upheaval.
On “Let’s Review”
Sheldon -
Maybe my post wasn't clear, but I am definitely in favor of investigating torture. I'm not a liberal, but my question was aimed at liberals who (like me) oppose torture and want to see it stopped: would you be willing to sacrifice an important part of the progressive legislative agenda to see that this happens?
As I said above, I think there's a good chance that a torture investigation - however necessary - would incur huge costs in terms of Democratic political capital and popularity. My question is whether Dems are willing to bear these costs.
On “McDonnell’s thesis”
Ha. Given the state of the Republican Party, I venture that quite a few conservatives are doing the same thing.
On “Let’s Review”
Barry -
My point is that a divisive torture investigation will drain popularity and political capital from the Dems, not alienate moderate Republicans who might otherwise support their agenda.
"
An admirable sentiment.
On “Alan Turing”
Seconded.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.