Heuristic Discipline-Based Approach to Academic Evaluation

I've always been rather irreverent with (dis)respect to academia. It comes from having too many academics in the family. It results in an accumulation of mental rules of thumb related to academic life, as well as a sort of facility for generating academic-sounding phrases that can be used to write academic-sounding pieces. Hence the title.

What this piece is about is perhaps not what you came here looking for, though, my dear Google-based researcher. It's actually about the rules of thumb I have for evaluating academic staff — researchers, lecturers. They are not serious prescriptive (or proscriptive) rules, but those which have been lurking in my head, and which by profound subjective introspection (as opposed to objective, using fMRI and suchlike) I have managed to elute (no, not elude; that would be terrible).

Without further ado, here are the rules. Note that they are based on discipline, and not on publications. Publication analysis is a whole other kettle of fishiness.

1. Determine subject's doctoral degree concentration (i.e. the main subject's main subject).

1a. If it is based on fictional narratives (e.g. literature, adminstration, business), then smile and back away. Dangerous to know, probably fascinating to listen to as long as you don't mind loud noises or meaningful looks, prolonged contact requires insanity check.

1b. If it is based on real narratives (e.g. history, economics, education), then consider seriously on case-by-case basis. Do not smile. This encourages them to wander out of their expertise and into speculation (if not already there). If subject smiles, run.

1c. If it is based on real narratives and invokes science or rules systems (e.g. law, sociology, anthropology, sports), then consider how real the science is, or how meaningful the rules are. This could lead to reclassification under 1a or 1b. Smile skeptically, you'll be mirroring the subject.

1d. If it is based on deliberate use of serious science or rules systems to conceal real narratives (e.g. medicine, cosmology, linguistics), then smile and prepare to have some fun. Steer conversation towards underlying narrative, add alcohol, and be entertained by wild speculation.

1e. If it is entirely based on serious science or rules systems, and has no real narrative apart from its own history (e.g. physics, philosophy, computer science, math), then try hard not to smile (you should succeed) and get out a paper napkin. Engage furious scribbling if unable to engage warp speed.

1f. If doctoral classification fails, then relax, this is not a serious academic and is thus probably harmless.

1g. For dual degrees, consider both possible responses.

-----

2. Examine subject's master's degree if present.

2a. Degree is from Cambridge or Oxford, required payment of fees but no other work. Ignore.

2b. Degree is from an American university, normally means subject failed to acquire doctorate. Feel sympathetic but do not show it. Classify according to 1.

2c. Degree is from Harvard or equivalent, but non-medical. Normally means subject has acquired degree in lieu of doctorate, medals, or other social achievements. Note this and proceed accordingly. Classify according to 1.

2d. Degree is from elsewhere, classify according to 1.

2e. For medical degrees, subject is a specialist (unless it is a Master's in Public Health or suchlike). Treat with care, just in case you end up being treated by subject.

2f. If classification is different between step 1 and step 2, consider degree of difference. Severe difference may indicate brain trauma or equivalent. Approach with care, and if necessary, metal-studded gloves of the kind used to handle razor wire.

-----

3. Examine basic degree.

3a. Degree is B... anything except BA or BSc. Normally indicates desire to be overspecialised while not being specialised at all. Classify according to 1.

3b. Degree is MBBS. Special case of 3a. May stand for 'More Brains But Slower' or 'Much Booze But Smarter'. Is actually a medical degree.

3c. Degree is LLB. Special case of 3a. Ask candidate what it stands for, and if reply is 'Limited Liability Business' or equivalent, stay far, far away. Is actually a law degree.

3d. Degree is BA or BSc. Classify according to 1.

3e. If classification has changed between here and other stages, and difference is great, consider arming self with crossbow and approaching from distance. See 2f for other precautions. Some difference is to be expected, though — most people are too young to know what they're doing when they get their first degrees.

=====

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

Three Questions

How do we know things, and how do we know that we know? That's what epistemology is all about, and in the process of figuring it out, we all come up with theories of knowledge.

I think there are three main questions.

1. What led up to this?
2. Where does this lead to?
3. Is it good?

I suspect that no matter how humans think, it all boils down to these three things because I haven't found any paradigm that needs any other questions. In itself, this isn't proof that there aren't any other key questions, of course. I'm just saying that you need three for human inquiry.

Why these three? The first one establishes cause. The second one establishes effect. And the third requires value judgement, whether relative ("Is this good compared to... ?") or absolute ("Is this good in itself?").

It is certainly possible to use fewer questions in some disciplines. However, it doesn't seem profitable to use more except as elaborations or refinements of these three, for a specific purpose within a specific kind of inquiry.

Oddly enough, the 'Rule of Three' is one of the rules of human stories; things always come in threes. Maybe the Rule of Three is like Finagle's Law, one of the great meta rules of human existence.

The Other Invisible Hand

Everyone knows about Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', one of the seminal metaphors in economics. To be more exact, it is the idea that the forces of competition, self-interest, and supply/demand will work together to produce the most efficient allocation of resources. This is the basis of the 'free market'.

But if that is the right hand of human social impulses, the left hand is Robert Michels' hand of the bureaucratic impulse, the idea that keeping things tightly controlled is a good thing. This is the basis of the 'market square', the framework in which and through which the 'free market' is forced to operate.

John Taylor Gatto, in his book Weapons of Mass Instruction, mentions what sounds awfully like the other invisible hand in the context of education. He says:

...men and women who staff institutional schooling are very like those in other complex institutions — if they exercise significant free will they will become outlaws who must be sanctioned, and things which improve performance are hardly more welcome than things which impair it. Deviations from a steady state jeopardize the 'system mission'... innovation was powerfully resisted; independent practitioners were sanctioned — ostracized if they persisted

This sounds so much like the old place. Essentially, teaching the way I did was considered 'bad teaching'. Ironically, when I did the boring stuff, I was praised for it. When I did the interesting stuff, a few enlightened people in distant powerful places thought it was good, but the immediate hierarchy squirmed. And because I was one of the 'interesting people' (of which there were really quite a few; I wasn't the only one), whenever something suspicious happened, I was immediately on the shortlist of people to blame.

I realise now that essentially old men running bureaucracies always want to hold on to power. It is a deep-seated impulse which is perfectly natural, since to lose their grip (or to appear to) is to admit uselessness and impotence. Sometimes it is also for very good reasons; these people perceive that they are the best persons for the job and cannot imagine anyone would be as good at being them. In that sense, they are right — nobody is so alike them that replacement would be exact.

Robert Michels said that the key function of bureaucracies is never their publicly-stated primary mission, but the protection and maintenance of the bureaucracy itself. In that light, it is quite obvious why most innovation is a sham, a shoving around of things designed to look like advancement and progress, but masking the truth.

In an educational context, this truth is that students are not smarter than before, not wiser, not more capable; they are just as good as ever, except that schools take credit for their work and subtly persuade them that without school, they would not be as successful. Instead of empowering them and setting them free, as schools claim, they are actually applying invisible shackles with an invisible hand, so that the majority of students never grow up to become the insurrectionists that society really needs for true progress.

One of those shackles is called 'debt to society', which over the last few decades has overtaken the perfectly legitimate debt to parents. In this era, parents often feel incompetent to educate their own children, a feeling enhanced and intensified by constantly changing syllabi which in some cases teach less than those parents learnt when they were in school. That is why students can imagine that their debt to society is greater than their debt to parents; society provides schools that provide grades and certificates and jobs based on those, and money beside.

When Smith's invisible hand meets Michels' invisible hand, students are flattened in between and become two-dimensional. The combination of 'free market' and 'controlling framework' leads to dominance by those capable of brachiating through the social jungle, the monkeys best able to follow monkey rules. Those who would change those rules or make their own rules are few because many think they would fail.

Yet even supposedly conservative texts like the Bible say things like, "Do not be conformed to the system of the world." The Biblical Jesus paid tribute to the Law, but he said that the fulfillment of the Law was beyond the Law itself. He was the independent insurrectionist of his time: the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath — the Laws were made because of the hardness of men's hearts. But it is Man who is more important than Law.

We who live in the framework should be aware of both invisible hands. It is Michels' bureaucratic hand that is more pernicious, more deadly. It preserves a population pyramid in which craftsmanship is denied a proper place, and administrative power is king. I suspect that if even 10% of the teachers of the nation were to aim beyond the framework, at least 50% of their students would be lifted beyond the limits of their current horizons.

=====

Note: I think the major difference between Smith's hand and Michels' hand is that Smith thought the invisible economic hand was a good thing in general, whereas Michels thought the invisible bureaucratic hand was an evil thing.

Zero Tolerance

Recently, to a fairly large extent, the Chinese National Chess Championship was decided by application of a zero-tolerance rule. If you weren't sitting at the board when the time arrived, you were immediately forfeited, regardless of what you were doing, whether you had already signed in, or whatever.

Life in a deterministic universe, if not already here, is going to be imposed. Enjoy.

First Principles: Negotiation

I have to admit that I'm a bit of a junkie for lists; I am somewhat of a lister myself. Some time ago, I realised that some politicians make clearly defined lists of interesting points which they claim to use. Some of these lists are particularly useful to think about.

Here is a list from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, taken from his book, Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life (pages 363-365), on negotiation:

Richardson's Rules
• Share the credit. Politics and diplomacy are team sports. Acknowledge it.
• Be discreet and don't volunteer too much information.
• Your style can be informal, but you must show proper respect.
• Remember who your friends were when things weren't going so well.
• Aim big. Always try to achieve more than you have to.
• When you're about to make a major change, cover your bases.
• It helps to be in good shape. You never know when you're going to be called to the negotiating table.
• Deliver a strong message with dignity and without insults.
• Never lie when negotiating, because lies catch up with you. Be direct.
• Use the media if you need to, but keep your negotiations private.
• Have others deliver bad news; it keeps you viable as a future negotiator.
• In most meetings, the law of diminishing returns kicks in after five minutes.

=====

Very useful rules indeed. I have also begun to look at Senator Barack Obama's speeches. He is good at identifying key points in very large discussion frameworks.