Football's Soul Searching

Football head injuries, namely concussions as the liberals call them, have gotten a lot of press lately. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Thanks to an active childhood I've had more concussions than you can count on one hand. Most were not sports related. One was the result of a catastrophic failure of a homemade rope swing, the other the catastrophic failure of a tree branch. I don't see what Billy Graham has to do with it. Yes, he tried to make sure that Kennedy didn't get elected. That was only to protect the country from the influence of the Pope. And I think that any American can agree with the idea that a decentralization of economic decision making has lead to a shift in the relative importance of various agencies. This is due to the change in focus from national macroeconomic policy measures as the main prescription for all economic ills (be they municipal, regional or national) to a system of regional competition. This competition would force helmet manufacturers to make innovations in crumple-zone technologies that are not single-use like modern bicycle helmets. This is why the government needs to expand subsidies for football. The NEA has tons of money that is obviously not going to the creation of any useful final product. Football teaches our boys skills of great import to our nation, such as physical and mental toughness, 2-technique gap assignments and how to sexually harass a woman other than your wife and avoid divorce. If this country is to rebuild itself into the world powerhouse it once was we need football. All this carrying on about bumps to the noggin ultimately hurts football. Hurting football hurts the squirrel bounding through my yard.

Political Turmoil

Throw your kids in the woods

Now, I've not been keeping up on this for several reasons, the main one being that I don't have enough time. It dawned on me last night that I've been watching an awful lot of television on my computer thanks to Netflix and my recently acquired EyeTV contraption that gives me regular cable. While said television watching has been great (Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job being a particular favorite) it often leaves me feeling like a big slovenly American. My challenge to myself then was to act like a smoker and every time I felt like watching some boob tube, I'd use that time to write instead. The trouble is my other reason for not writing is that I'm not the type to tell everyone all the little details of my life, largely because they're just not that interesting, even to me. That's all I've felt I've had to write about. But, I've been told more than once to write anything. The plan is to make an effort to try. Though, as you all know, my record isn't great. Being lazy, I don't plan on sticking much to traditional conventions such as citations or even links. The idea is that it'll free me up some and allow me to focus on the writing part.

So what is on my mind these days, other than theories of economic growth? There was an article in the New York Times about the sales of kid's picture books falling. The reason given was that parents are pushing their kids to read chapter-based young-adult books as early as ages five and six, because if they don't, little Billy won't get into Harvard. Okay, so I was making that last leap but it's not a hard one to make. The interesting thing about it was that they quoted a professional type person, in the field of this or that, saying that picture books are a great learning tool for analytical thinking because with sparse text they force the little brat to fill in the gaps between pages. In contrast, the chapter-based books spell everything out for the reader and not necessarily with more advanced text. The best, or worst, part was when a parent said that they kept their six-year-old away from picture books even though he said that the chapter books made reading feel like work. Solid parenting right there. It makes me wonder if they see reading as work too.

I see this as being a problem with unfettered competition or meritocracy. Yes, the person that does the best and is presumably doing the most work gets rewarded, but at what point do we get inefficient or ill advised investments by parents and students? Maybe better asked, are we getting too little investment in other areas? It's reasonable to question whether one article can be taken as actually showing a broad trend in parenting choices, but it's hard to argue with declining sales of picture books on a national level. What was once a staple of parenting is slipping away and being replaced, and that to me suggests some good evidence of a shift in parenting practices.

It's been argued that parents meddle too much in the sporting lives of kids and that having kids in soccer at four or five can actually hurt their social development. Left alone, kids learn to create rules as a group and structure play collectively. Add a coach and you take that all away. Forcing your kids to read more advanced books than are recommended for their age is just another example of that. The main assumption underlying both activities is that what kids would chose to do if left alone is unproductive and possibly even harmful. But look at animals. Cubs largely do whatever they want and so they play a lot. Through unstructured play they develop all the skills they need. Why can't we do this more? Maybe Billy doesn't become a gifted writer but he develops a passion for drawing thanks to all those great pictures. The mind of a child is not zero-sum; if they don't become amazing at one thing it does not mean that they won't become amazing at something else.

Coloring Time

Recently I've been teaching myself the vector graphic capabilities of Photoshop CS2. Here is the first colored sketch. I kept it nice and simple and chose not to try a bunch of color shading. I'll work on that next. But I feel pretty good about the result.



I've been in New York for the last few days visiting the family. I'm having a blast. Looks like I finished the coloring just in time as the sun is just starting to come out. I appear to be having an allergic reaction to something because my right sinus is good and runny. It's not too bad, but as usual, we're all waiting on Megan to come back with some medicine. She's taking her sweet time.

Beer and sun are calling. I will not disappoint them.

Truck Troubles

As some of you may know, my 1990 Toyota pickup doesn't like me. Or at least the 22re engine doesn't. Last year I ran out of gas because there is no idiot light. I was poor and wanted to wait as long as I could before filling it up again. Bad call. The truck hasn't run properly since. Early on the problem manifested itself as a cooling issue and I was actually able drive it to New York and back without any apparent problem. But, a some point the cylinder head cracked. Once winter let up, I replaced the cylinder head only to have the new head gasket blow right away. After putting on another gasket, it still doesn't want to run right and is continuing to overheat. I can't figure it out, so I'm having a pro look it over right now.

Recently, with all the truck trouble getting me down, I've been watching a lot of World Rally Championship (WRC) on YouTube. That got me thinking: 1) I want a rally car, but 2) I want to rally the truck. Not in the WRC way, but in a Paris-Dakar or Baja 1000 fashion. Rather than trying to win anything, I'd just like to run either race and put the truck to the test. I may be fantasizing here, but right now I need fantasy to keep me motivated on getting this thing fixed.

I want to keep the truck after I finish school, because as I see it, spending even $2000 to rebuild the engine would be money well spent. I've only ever owned $2000 cars, and they all have problems. I could spend the money on a new $2000 car, but it's going to need work. Why not just put the money into the truck and have it run great for another 100,000 miles?

Previously, I've always demanded that any car I own have all the power options and a sunroof, but having a bone-stock, no options truck has been liberating. I don't have to worry about non-essential options kicking the bucket and costing an arm and a leg to fix. I don't even have power steering. Where's the benefit in that? I don't have to worry about power steering fluid. One less thing. I don't mean to get all philosophical, but when it comes to cars, I'm starting to believe that simple is beautiful. That of course only has limited application when it comes to racing. For a rally, you better believe that I want power steering, an F1-style sequential gearbox with paddle sifting, and outrageously expensive suspension. Half the fun of a rally would be preparing the truck.



Update: I was just about to post this when the mechanic called and said the only thing he found wrong with it was an air bubble in the cooling system. Once that was out the truck drove fine and didn't overheat. Sweet deal right? Wrong! On my way home it started overheating. I went back, and as we sat there talking about it, it stopped overheating. Hun. Well, we thought, maybe there was another air bubble. But as I got back in I spotted coolant underneath my pedals. "There you go," he says. "Heater core." I've got the dash completely ripped out and am hoping there's a new heater core in town. This is the last thing in the heating system that's not new, so this better do it. Oh, and everything else is in good shape. The new head gasket is holding solid and my oil is clear and coolant free. So, that part is pretty fresh.

I'm Ba-ack!

[When you read the title, you should think about Randy Quaid flying into the alien ship in Independence Day.]

Well, well, well. Look what the cat dragged in. I know that's what everyone must be saying. My response: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've been busy. I just recycled a nearly three inch stack of paper which was my reading for the semester. I finished my last final at 9:30 am this morning and couldn't feel better. As some of you may know, about halfway through the semester I began to question whether the degree was worth it. This was because all the jobs for a student of economics I was seeing were not anything I really wanted to do. But, family being family, they helped me to understand that this degree is going to open many doors and not all of them in economics. So I kept at it and am happy to say that I finished strong. I thinking something like two A's and a B. We'll see.

While reading academic paper after academic paper, the blog was always on the back of my mind. I've recently been following the blog of professional bmx rider Taj Mahelich, called Fairdale. Fairdale is made up mostly of his cartoons, funny stories and the occasional iPod-compatible wiener dog boom box. I realized I had plenty of good drawings in the Moleskin and so I plan to start posting some up. Taj's work is more finished and colorful, but these are drawings (doodles) that were largely made while waiting. If I get adventurous, I'll dig out some of the old class notebooks. Lord knows what's in those. So, here is the first doodle. I figured being an economist in training, a market based doodle is the most appropriate first post.


Having been a student for as long as I can remember, and interested in drawing since since at least the fourth grade, I've noticed that my best drawing work generally occurs in the margins. Even in the Moleskin, most of the best stuff is wedged in around writing. If I have a large page in front of me, I have no idea what to do with it. But, if confined to a small space, I don't have any trouble putting a pen or pencil to the page. I don't worry about what I draw. I just let it come out. When working with a full page I feel like I have to make it good. If I don't, I wasted not only time but a good sheet of paper. An artist in Eugene named Rose told me that it was a matter of teaching my arm to draw. Right now I'm only drawing with my hand, but if I want to move my drawing to larger media I need to teach my arm what my hand already knows. I need to make a full page a confining space.

I mentioned that I can get the feeling while drawing that I'm wasting time. Teaching my arm to draw is a simple mechanical problem, but not getting restless in a seat is a more difficult problem. It may be the carpenter in me, but if I'm not out sawing, turning a wrench, or even riding the bmx bike, I get the feeling that I'm not doing anything productive. The funny thing is that, for the most part, I don't get this feeling when writing a paper or doing work for class. It's really when I'm doing my own thing that I start to feel wasteful. I also get this feeling while writing my own stories, or working on a photo in the computer. I have to ask: Why only when I'm doing my own thing? The feeling is worse during the daylight hours, which makes sense. But it happens even during rainy days when going outside is the last thing that I want to do. In fact, on rainy days, I often get the distinct feeling that I should be taking pictures. So when I try to draw or write, I can't shake the feeling that the more productive use of my time would be making photographs. Problem is there isn't usually jack to photograph in my little apartment. The best use of my time then, one would think, would be writing or drawing. Instead I end up hobbling together some picture of one of my broken chairs that's just not that good.

Is it all self-doubt? Is it just a longing to be out in the shop or outdoors? I don't know. One idea is to recognize that I'm like a moth and when the sun's out I just have to get closer to that light. If I want to draw or write, I'd likely have the best luck doing it at night. The last trick will be to not let myself veg in front of the computer now that I have more Kids in the Hall episodes than I can shake a stick at. If I can work through all this and start producing some good stuff, you guys will be the first to see it.

Cheers.

Letter to the Portland Public School Board

Here is a copy of the email I sent to the school board. Hopefully it makes a little bit of difference. They seem pretty gung-ho on going through with their plan, regardless of what the community says. I hope I'm wrong on that.

Dear School Board Members,

I am very distressed to hear of your plans to turn Grant High School into an application-only magnet school. I just barely graduated from Grant in 2002 and am now currently studying towards a Master's degree in Policy Economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Turning Grant into a magnet school will do nothing positive for the surrounding community. It will force current residents with students lacking desire to attend the magnet school to expend more resources shipping their kids to another school further away and not centered in their immediate community. You will also increase the commuting costs for many of the students who do get into the magnet school. An increase in commuting is not good for our environment or for abating the increasing congestion Portlanders face every day. You have a choice between allowing many students to continue to walk to their neighborhood school, a healthy activity, or encourage/force them to drive/commute greater distances. And the idea that lots students, who previously walked or drove a short distance, would simply substitute with public transportation is laughable. It's hard enough to get students up for class at 8am when the school is only five or six blocks away.

I also object to the idea of magnet schools in general, unless they are on a very small scale. All schools should have a diverse list of educational programs. I didn’t know what I wanted to study until I was 21 years old and a sophomore at the University of Oregon. And I am not alone. Many students get college degrees that they don’t necessarily care about because of little interest in academics, but felt strong pressure to ‘just get a degree.’ Magnet schools encourage students to pick an area that they may ultimately decide they’re not interested in pursuing as a career. What happens if a student realizes at the end of junior year that they’re more interesting in engineering than music? They’ve trained for a music college that they’re no longer interested in. Students should have a wealth of diverse classes right in their community school. I would have loved to take a polytechnic class, but that would have required me to completely switch schools and head to Benson.

I also believe that magnet schools often promote elitism. The idea of elitism is strong in higher (and private) education but it carries with it the added element of one's ability to pay its high costs. We should not be promoting elitism based on academic or artistic skills in public education. Why not try to engage other students with lower math or writing score with other programs more suited to their strengths? Put the money into bringing back the industrial arts in all schools, not just one school that may not be practical for a student to attend, or may not want to devote their entire high school education to. Give students at all schools the opportunity to learn welding, how to build an electronic circuit, or how to paint a portrait. Students need to see that no matter what their ability in a few arguably arbitrary subjects they are valued. You don't accomplish that by segregating them. And often overlooked are the negative effects on the students that are 'qualified' for the magnet school. It can reinforce in them the idea that they are more valuable and more deserving than other students. This is just as unhealthy as telling them that they are not valuable. Elitism gets promoted on both fronts. When you segregate the students you take away the invaluable experience of interacting with other students of different races, socioeconomic backgrounds and talents – a vital component in developing a caring, responsible, civic-minded person/populace.

Maybe a student with low math scores just needs to see its application in a very concrete way? Teach him math in the context of electronics. Make him see that math isn't just for getting good test scores and further asserting how much better they are than other students. If you restrict subjects to specific locations, that student won’t have the opportunity to see math in another light. I nearly failed algebra my senior year. I wasn't in the least bit interested in learning math. When I realized that what I was interested in studying microeconomics and it contained a great deal of math, I went to work. Now I've excelled in topics such as Linear Algebra, Differential Equations and Mathematical Statistics, and I plan to learn more math that I don't even need.

Because of the waste of resources, the damage to the surrounding community, the damage to all students of the city, and the inherent elitism, I am strongly opposed to turning Grant High School (and other current community high schools) into an application-only magnet school. One of the main reasons Grant is a good school is the community that surrounds it. If you take the community out of that school, not only will the school suffer, but the community will suffer alongside it. I urge you, the members of the School Board, to think seriously about the negative consequences and the destructiveness of such a decision.

I also urge the School Board to rethink how it evaluates the quality of the district’s education. Our society is placing far too much emphasis on a college education as the only way to “get ahead.” This is incorrect and it promotes an unhealthy definition of success as winning a competition of who can gain the most monetary and material wealth. As a student of economics I’ve seen first hand the dangers of a worldview based solely on the idea of ‘competition is king’ (me and Alan Greenspan both). By pushing college attendance rates as the primary rubric of a school district’s quality we’re entrenching a stigma of technical and skill-based careers in the minds of students and their parents. Glen Waddell, one of my economics professors at the University of Oregon, studies higher education and frequently told us that too many kids are going to college that probably shouldn’t.[1] In a video by Matthew Orr for The New York Times, Tamara Draut, director of the Demos Economics Opportunity Program, explains that a college education makes men no better off than it did in the 1970’s (women have done a little better), yet the cost of education has increased dramatically.[2] We’re selling college as the only way to go when it has a worse net payoff than ever before. We are misleading the next generation and that is unambiguously wrong.

It was mentioned in the District’s “Plan for Stronger High Schools” that there was concern that many of the graduating class of 2007 would “struggle and drop out before earning their degrees.” This is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps they will go to college and realize that college isn’t the right fit for them. Maybe some students struggle because they really didn’t want to be there and don’t see the applicability to what they want to do or care about. My cousin had that exact realization. He hated college, dropped out and is now working with his dad as a mason and feels much better about his situation in life. Do we want to tell kids to burden themselves with twenty- or thirty-thousand dollars of debt so they can get a degree that they may not want/need, because, well, ‘that’s just what you do’? No. We need to guide students to careers that not only are a good fit for their individual talents, but careers that they will feel are making a useful contribution. When this happens you get people who love their jobs.

If we give students all of the correct information, almost all of them will self-select and choose the path that fits them best. And some might take longer than others to do that. It took me two years to go back to school. Part of the correct information would be to let kids know that they can take their time, but they have to be very mindful and not put themselves in a situation where the option of college is out of reach (for example: by spending a bunch of money they don’t really have with credit cards, a subject ripe for extremely informative application-based math education).

The main criteria for high schools should be the level of engagement, which I argue is directly reflected in graduation rates. The School Board definitely has a right to be concerned about the level of graduation. It is correct to say that we need to get students to see the value in a high school education. But when we stress getting into college as the ultimate goal, many will choose to opt out (which includes “just getting by” like I did) as college is not their goal. High school must be relevant to all goals. This is why every student must have easy access to a variety of educational experiences. Magnet schools do not offer this.

I have laid out a lofty challenge: to reevaluate how we as a city and a society measure success and how best to implement this new philosophy given the structure of our current school system. I, for one, don’t exactly know how. But the problem isn’t beyond our capabilities. We have a wealth of very talented people that could offer solutions. One of the main obstacles is getting agreement on what the problem actually is, which too often degenerates into politics. While I think the problem is relatively clear, and I hope that I will have convinced some (a controlling majority of the members of the School Board – nudge, nudge), there are certainly going to be those that remain unconvinced. Hopefully they will be genuinely open to further discussion and not so quick to pass judgment. If we make a strong commitment, and mention taxes as little as possible, I think that Portland is the place that could get this done and show the rest of the country that it is a leader in giving our kids a truly quality education.

Thank you for you time.

Sincerely,
Reed Avery
avery3@illinois.edu
Ulysses S. Grant High School, Class of 2002


[1] Fully explaining Dr. Waddell’s thinking is beyond the scope of this letter, and I hope he would not feel that I have grossly over-simplified.
[2] Orr, Matthew, “Debt Trap: College Borrowing Catches Up,” http://video.nytimes.com/video/2008/12/31/business/1194837095176/debt-trap-college-borrowing-catches-up.html?scp=1&sq=college%20debt&st=cse. The New York Times, Dec. 31, 2008.