Baseball Season Nears the End

I am not a very active professional baseball fan.  I prefer high school and college sports to professional sports.  I have too many other things to do to watch three to four hours four to five days per week to follow a team closely.  But, thanks to my parents and some very good kindergarten and 1st grade instructors, I do know how to read and so I can follow baseball with about 15 minutes of reading a few days per week and a few peeks at the crawler on the bottom of the screen on ESPN.  Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I am a Kansas City Royals fan (have been since I lived there in the mid 1970s while my dad was in seminary at Midwestern Theological).

For my two cents, hats off to the NL Central, hands down the toughest group of teams in professional baseball this year.  The top three teams in this division had better win-loss records than the Royals, who had the best record in the AL.  As the end of the season and the World Series approach, sit back and enjoy some of the best baseball of the year.  I'll even make time to watch three or four hours of playoff ball.  Go Royals.

Syrian Refugees (er, Excuse Me, Migrants)

I have been bothered in recent weeks by the issues surrounding Syrians fleeing fighting between the government, rebel groups (they are not a cohesive, singular rebel group and include Al-Qaeda linked organizations as well as others), and Daesh.  These Syrians are the good guys in the equation, threatened by the government because of their political views, threatened by the rebels because of their politics, religious actions, social class, ethnic group, and threatened by Daesh because Daesh pretty much threatens everyone around them.  In the last three days I have figured out exactly why I am bothered by this situation.  I am bothered because of the use of the word "migrant".  These people are not just migrants, migrants legal or illegal leave their home to go and get work or a better life in another country by choice and desire.  The Syrians fleeing Syria are doing so out of fear for their life, not fear of their livelihood.

For my two cents, these Syrians, fleeing from Al-Assad and Al-Nussra, and Daesh are refugees.  Refugees are accorded special consideration--don't believe me, read the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocols on the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  Retired Admiral Stavridis called U.S. actions related to this issue a challenge of character.  I agree, these are refugees for political and religious reasons--the U.S. signed the Convention and Protocol--now we must act in accordance with the principles of character we espoused as a country or show the world we have no character.  I know what I hope we do.

Addition 2 hours Later:  Perusing Foreign Policy online and came across this item by Stephen Walt.  I was heartened to see that a realist in whom there is no guile (to borrow a phrase) also feels angst over the question of what to do and whether we did the right thing vis-a-vis Syria.

Unitary Rational Actor

One of the assumptions of realist theories in international relations is that states (governments) are unitary rational actors.  This assumption means that states (governments) have one voice in international relations and that they act according to rank ordered preferences of outcomes in so far as possible.  In relation to Cuba the Obama Administration may be breaking away from what many scholars have said is a tendency toward acting in a manner consistent with variants of realist theories of international relations.  According to this article, the administration may break away from Congress in an international forum.  When part of the government acts in a manner different from another part of the same government the unitary actor principle is thrown out the door. 

For my two cents, the Cuban embargo should have ended long ago.  The Cold War is over, in case you neocons and liberal internationalists alike have forgotten.  Opportunities exist to make changes in the world to engage in the meaningful spread of economic and political freedoms in the world.  But if you choke off the ability to engage populations because of Cold War principles, you are cutting off the potential to make real meaningful change in the contemporary world.  What threat to the security of the U.S. population exists from being able to smoke a great Bolivar or Romeo y Julietta while sipping rum on the beach in Cuba?  What threat to our security is represented by allowing U.S. companies to trade in Cuba or Cuban companies to trade in the U.S.?  If you can explain the threat to me, please do so.

Standards? What Standards?

Let me see if I understand things correctly.  Nuclear probes were supposed to be conducted to determine if the Iranian government was developing fuel and triggers for nuclear weapons at their nuclear energy/technology facilities.  The International Atomic Energy Agency has responsibility for overseeing the conduct of these probes.  The IAEA allows the Iranian government to conduct the probes and submit the reports of findings in these probes.  I am not making these statements up out of thin air, read this article. 

For my two cents how can you call these probes unbiased, fair, respectable?  In no other case of investigation has the investigated party ever been allowed to be responsible for conducting the investigation.  What a joke IAEA, what a joke international community.  If the question of nuclear proliferation is important, then own up to the responsibility and to holding the Iranian government accountable.  Accountability mean having outside oversight to ensure that the actor keeps the standards to which the actor has agreed.  If the Iranians agree to the standard of non-proliferation then they must allow the outside accountability or they have not truly agreed to be held accountable for upholding the standard.

Syllabi Sexism and APSA Baby Issues

Two things piqued my thoughts recently regarding my chosen profession.  One is sexism in assigned readings in the study of international relations (interesting blog piece here that started me thinking and looking at my syllabi).  The other was that APSA did not have insurance coverage that allowed babies in the annual convention exhibition room.

I do not consider myself to be sexist about academic work.  Based on my judgment, 6 out of the top 10 students I have worked with were females at the undergraduate level.  Based on those faculty members I was around as an undergraduate and graduate I have a limited sample, but anecdotally the female faculty I worked with were on par with the male faculty I worked with during the same time periods, which is to say some were fantastic, most average, and some, well some... I also had several female classmates as an undergraduate who were fantastic students and several female members of my grad school cohort who were great and several who were, well they were, and again the same could be said of all of the male classmates and grad school cohort members.  I have been accused of being sexist because of my belief that some careers are meant for men to fill--I do not believe women should serve in special operations and combat arms areas of the military (go ahead an hate me for saying so if you want, but I have a right to my opinion--and it may stink also, educated though it may be).  I have never and will never feel that academia is one of those areas where females should not find fulfilling careers--why, because women are just a smart or smarter than men and just as capable or often better capable than men when it comes to use of analytical thoughts.  Which is why I had no surprises when looking at my bookshelf and looking at the readings I required of my students and finding that just shy of 50% of what I have read and/or am requiring my students to read was written by women.

For my two cents, the valid question involved in the issue of sexism in academic study of international relations is on the publishing side of the equation.  Does the fact that male publications outnumber female publications create the situation where more male written scholarship appears in our syllabi represent sexism on the part of the syllabi authors or some degree of potential sexism in the editorial and review staff of journals and academic material publishers?  As a reviewer I do not know the name of the author or authors who wrote the work I am reviewing.  Can I guess, on a rare occasion I can guess the author(s) based on writing style and thematic content.  But, the editors at the journals and the presses know.  So the question of sexism may or may not be as validly aimed at the writers of syllabi as at the publishers.

On to the baby scandal at APSA.  Apparently babies were turned away at the exhibition hall at APSA.  Two reasons, one stupid, the other stupider were mentioned by the blogs I have read about the subject.  One, only properly credentialed conference attendees are allowed into the exhibition hall (we would not want spouses and kids looking at books, coffee urns, meetings with editors, etc.).  Two, APSA did not have the proper insurance to cover kids in the exhibition hall.  You decide which is stupid and which is stupider.  APSA was, for my two cents, being cheap and opted for a lower level of insurance coverage for the conference that did not cover kids in the exhibition hall.  I will not tell you what I think about kids being at conferences as my opinion on the matter is worth no more or no less than anyone other opinion on the matter.  Ok, I will tell you, I have taken my kids with me to conferences, but never to the exhibition hall or to professional activities at the conference (they and their mother or they by themselves were capable of staying in the room or engaging in other vacation type activities while I worked).  So I really do not have an opinion as I have never been in the position of taking a child requiring adult supervision at all times to a conference and thus have never really thought about the issue until reading about it this week.
 

Replication and Scientific Knowledge

I am a logical positivist (and in charge of the sheep dip--laugh if you get the reference), an empirical social scientist who studies international relations.  One of my fondest responsibilities at GCC is teaching research methods in the Political Science Department.  Really, I mean it, I like teaching research methods, it allows me to stress the logic of research, purpose of research, etc. to our students and to equip them with skills and techniques to enhance their own research work at GCC and beyond.

One of the first class discussions we have is on what Political Science means and how knowing what Political Science means leads us to engaging in empirical research.  Part of this discussion is focused on understanding characteristics of scientific knowledge.  One of those characteristics is that scientific knowledge is transmissible--we can clearly, and concisely communicate our research to others.  Part of this process is crafting tests of hypotheses (answers to the research question) that other scholars replicate if they choose.

The question of replication has recently come forth in a study examined in an article in Inside Higher Education.  The study was specifically about replication issues in Psychology research.  The author asks if this problem stretches beyond just Psychology and what can be done to place a premium on replication.

For my two cents, more consideration should be given by scholars replication efforts.  The truth is that we scholars are at least minimally arrogant, prima donna types who like to believe our work is very important and get really touchy about perceived unfair critique of our work.  The best of us have learned or were always predisposed to set aside our feelings and insecurities to allow our colleagues to offer constructive critique of our work--it simply makes the final product better.  Replication is one way we are able to offer critique to our colleagues.  I minimally engage in such effort when I review potential journal publications.  I more fully engage in replication of models used for testing data when I consider including pieces of research in the course literature I require my students to engage with each year.  Occasionally the replication is impossible due to lack of data availability (authors, the onus is yours to make the data available to the academic community).  Most often I find my failure to replicate results is based on the lack of clarity in communicating how particular data is organized and tested.  Sometimes, this lack of clarity is on my shoulders for not being familiar with the particular modeling techniques employed.  Sometimes, the lack of clarity is the fault of the authors.  Regardless, the academic community needs to pay more attention to the issue of replication, or we need to rethink our understanding of scientific knowledge.

ACT Benchmarks 2105 and Learning

Face with the beginning of the new semester most of my colleagues and I take time to reflect on learning and what we mean by learning at the collegiate level.  This reflection is particularly important to us as we are faced with public blow back against the usefulness of collegiate education and the public push for more people to attend college.  This time of reflection is often full of seemingly confusing information being offered (note my previous statement that the public wants more college education but says college education is not useful).

What most people mean by saying that college is not useful is that college is not teaching them specific job skills.  People are right, if you want job skills get a job.  College is not about teaching job skills.  College is about learning.  I continue to learn, I continue to seek knowledge.  College is about teaching learning skills--how to learn, what type of things to learn--that make humans better humans.  What a college education shows a potential employer is your ability to plan, to think, to complete projects.  What a college education shows law schools and graduate schools is your ability to engage in learning and some basic mastery of some subject materials.  None of this is directly related to job skills unless you are becoming a professional academic.

The thoughts I offer above bring me to my concern/consideration involved in my musing today.  Earlier I waded through some electronic articles form Inside Higher Ed that showed unchanged average scores from 2014 to 2015 for those who took the ACT and thus are potentially entering college this fall.  The average scores in 2015 for test takers in the U.S.: English 20.4, Mathematics 20.8, Reading 21.4, Science 20.9 for a composite average score of 21.0.  The highest score possible on any section and as a composite is 36.  The average scores are not very inspiring.  We should also ask what does this mean in terms of students ability to succeed in an average collegiate course in the U.S.  The ACT people have created a set of benchmarks to look at just this question.

The ACT benchmarks show what the score in English would need to be to earn a C in English Composition, the score in Mathematics to get a C in College Algebra, the score in Reading to get a C in an introduction course in a Social Science, the score in Science to get a C in Biology.  The English benchmark is 18, in Mathematics and Reading 22, and in Science 23.  The average ACT scores indicate to us, based on the benchmark scores, that the average U.S. test taker in 2015 is not likely to earn a C in any of the benchmark collegiate courses other than English Composition.

These numbers are not particularly disturbing.  I would argue that the average test taker should not be going to college anyway.  Public blow back over the seeming uselessness of a college degree is correct in the sense that most of the skills that you need to succeed in a job are learned on the job.  What is disturbing about these numbers to me is that apparently K-12 is not preparing students who desire to learn beyond K-12 for that endeavor while touting sending more young people to college than ever before.  Of course, that is just my two cents.