Welcome back to Obamadogs to Mr. Erickson, whose comment was duly noted on the worries of even law schools like U of M in keeping students around for ratings reasons may be a factor in the diminished emphasis on intellectual investments by students, as measured by student study hours per week, in the present as opposed to the past. Welcome also to Chris Liebig, aka Abhay's law school professor, who has commented in response to issues raised by Joe Muldoon and others regarding the goals of formal schooling. Prof. Liebig is concerned, reasonably, about the emphasis in Iowa City schools on championing "odedient" -- quite, compliant, passive -- behaviors in the elementary classroom in which his own children are students. This is an issue none of us has addressed directly, even though the Radicals from Lindblom's account would not be suprised that such norms operate in public schools regarded among Iowa's -- and hence the nation's -- finest. Most of our critical observations have been aimed at college and/or high school; but the primacy principle reminds us that what is learned earliest, even if it's to keep quiet and back away from raising questions, is learned best. I guess I'd presumed that elementary classrooms had become much more active and project- or inquiry-based than in the old days when I was a student. At least that seemed to be the case for our three daughters.
Before speaking to the title in this post, I feel compelled to mention a little-emphasized finding from the brouhaha-inciting study claiming to show that college's first two years are wasted on 45% of today's students. The finding in question -- or the truth-claim in question -- is that these hideous numbers are not nearly so severe for undergrads at traditional liberal arts colleges taking traditional arts and science classes where lots of tough reading and lots of analytical writing are required. In the big research universities, according to the report's authors, a silent bargain has been struck between professors whose principal efforts are in furthering their research and writing agendas and students who won't complain if they're not asked to do much--at least as first and second-year students. But this too is a claim subject to challenge, as indeed are much of the truth claims from the "Academically Adrift" study, based as they are on a single performance measure (the CLA). Remember Popperism: testability, falsifiability, tentativity, yada, yada.
As for this post's title, what are the odds that Mubarek's government will survive the growing expressions of mass protest? When you have 87 million people, half of whom fall short of the UN poverty theshhold of 2 bucks a day and 30% of whom are illiterate, in a country only a couple doors down from Tunisia, the odds-makers would not likely share the optimism of the authors of The Civic Culture. For starters, I'd put the odds of a change of government at even money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would say there is an 85% chance the government does not change in Egypt. The US gives too much money to Egypt for a change in power like the one in Tunisia to happen. I also believe the Egyptian government is more organized to handle the protests.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, there is a lot of anti-government emotions traveling throughout the Arab world, and the movement is gaining more momentum through new technology available to the region. Although protesters might have numbers on their side, a change in power is not in Israel's short term interests, and that is what will likely determine how the US responds to the situation.
The US does indeed give a lot of money to Egypt, and it has a definite stake in perpetuating the Mubarek regime as the key Arab neighbor of Israel to have signed a peace treaty with the Israelis. But while the regime is not the only corrupt one in the area, its people are in very bad shape. While it has been able to outlaw Islamist radical parties formally from its politics, there are nonetheless cells selling the Islamist narrative to the legions of destitute people, and the situation is ripe for a prolonged series of chaotic and violently repressed protests. I think the US takes an active role to save the Mubaraek regime at its own peril. 85% probability of no regime-change: humnn, that means for every dollar I put up, Joe; you win 15cents if Mubarek stays, while I win 85 cents from every dollar you put up if he's overthrown. Unless you weren't making odds, put assessing probabilities analytically as it were.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see where you get that probability from. Demonstrations are continuously getting larger and larger as we discuss this matter... The people are fighting for their children to be able to have a better future than what is going on in the present Egypt. That is a very noble cause and I think it has a lot of motivation among the demonstrators. No questions about it, The U.S., has a lot of interest in Egypt, but in this case on the brink of a possible overthrown Government I don't see where the U.S.'s interests has a big part in the equation. Then you have the ripple effect with Tunisia and all. Overall I think these demonstrations have a big potential. It all comes down to the motivation of the people, which I think (based on reading news articles) are pretty impressive.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see the reaction of Israel and the US as Egypt goes through this turmoil. Being the most populous Arab country in the world, Egypt is to a big extent important and acts as a pillar of stability for US interests in the region. As more and more people turn out on the streets and the hard-headed Mubarak still in power, I am in confusion as to what could happen next. I myself saw a revolution take place in my country as it transitioned from a monarchy to a republic. Yet, the background of course are different yet the increasing number of protesters and the alarm it has caused the Mubarak government seems to indicate that something is changing in Egypt...I think it would be too early to call it a complete revolution.
ReplyDelete