Bowling

Yesterday, after not making it into the free screening of The Interrupters, we decided to go bowling. Some of us arrived at the bowling alley earlier than others, and had already entered our names into the score-keeping screen.

Lucy: I’m looking for my friends, there should be 3 of them here already.

Person at the counter: Are your friends Nate, Matt, and Mark?

Lucy: No, they’re Jarrod, Chris, and Sue.

Person at the counter: Oh, ok, Sue. I see here that there is a group with “Sue Me,” “Quit Your Job,” and “Rainbow Warrior.” That’s probably you.

Louis Pasteur and the theory of spontaneous generation

The point of learning all the crap we do in school is so that we can observe the world better, and have a richer context in which we understand things. That’s why we are taught about atoms, and plant reproduction, and the Founding Fathers, and all the other stuff that has no practical use in our everyday lives. Nothing shatters that love of learning better than school.

Student: It’s amazing that the theory of spontaneous generation was disproven in only the last 150 years. That’s such a short time ago that people still believed inanimate matter could generate life. It must have caused all sorts of outcry – from spheres of science to religion to philosophy.

Teacher: (blank stare). Louis Pasteur. 1859. Meat broth. That’s what you need to know.

Here’s what the test looks like:

1. What is the theory of spontaneous generation?

2. What experiment in 1859 definitively disproved this theory? Who conducted the experiment?

Here are the kind of questions that I would like to have thought about growing up, instead:

Write an example of how the way of seeing the world is different between two people — one who lives just before and one who lives just after the theory of spontaneous generation is disproven. (10 pts: Demonstration of knowledge of what the theory is +3; Demonstration of knowledge of wider historical context during this period +2; Non-prosaic, well-narrated, and focused example +3 — if you don’t know what ‘prosaic’ means look it up; Using an actual historical figure from the period as one of the characters in your example, with relevant details indicating your knowledge of the person +2)

Bonus. Do you think this was Louis Pasteur’s most impressive work? His most important? Why or why not? (4 pts: Skillful use of details to indicate you understand what was hard or innovative — scientifically, politically, or otherwise — about several of Pasteur’s experiments +2; Making a compelling case +2)

Which classroom of students would emerge more edified, creative, stimulated, thoughtful, and making better observations about the world they live in?

The culture of what is promoted as important for students to achieve would have to change before questions of the latter sort could be effectively asked, but it’s nice to wish for.

missteps of the new guy: edulender-chipotle edition

Gchats that ensued after I made a general office announcement that there will be Chipotle:

Sam:  Chicken Fajita Burito with rice cheese, sour cream and corn salsa
me:  k

Cece: veggie bowl with the fajita veggie stuff, with tomato and corn salsa.. no cream or cheese, just lettuce and guac
me: k

adam: burrito: carnitas +extra rice +pinto beans +red hot salsa +cheese +sour cream +lettuce
me: k

sherry: burrito bowl steak no beans salsa: corn and mild
And no sour cream, sorry!
me: k

Andrew: !!! chicken burrito with mild salsa pleeeeeease !!!
me: ok, this isn’t helpful
please come to the conference room?

Restructuring cultural debates on the radio

Just finished listening to a tedious hour of debate about the burqa ban in France on the radio.

I’d like to see a radio station that eliminates technical arguments (the refutation to ‘wearing the burqa causes vitamin D deficiency’ is that the burqa also decreases the rate of skin cancer … ??!!! Why is this an important part of the conversation? Is this relevant to the most fundamental reasons people are compelled or not to wear one, or implement a ban?) and has their speakers structure debates in the following way:

1) State the reasons you believe that the current cultural norms have developed, and offer persuasive historical evidence that the causes you’re stating were major contributing factors. (Ex. Strict dress codes were developed as a way for societies in X geography to reduce climbing birth rates.)

2) State the way you believe society today should evolve, and the reasons why.

3) State the group of people today who agree with your values, and evidence (such as numbers) of their support. I.e., prove that you’re talking about a cultural paradigm struggle or shift (interesting to me) and not about your personal values and calculus (not interesting to me). In particular, eliminate discussion of weighing the relative morality of customs and cultures as an absolute concept of (usually your) human intuition.

At the FIRST robotics conference and it is awesome. The stadium came to a full stop when they blasted YMCA and 600 high school students started going nuts. I have decided that I am going to listen to more disco music from the 70s and 80s.