If All Else Fails, Blame China

I’ve spent the last year educating myself about economics. Why economics? Simply put, government bureaucrats use the Ignorance of the Masses to push through economic policies which superficially sound well-grounded yet have dangerous and harmful downstream effects. Being ignorant myself of economics, I did recognize many U.S. foreign and economic policies were damaging in the long run, I couldn’t find the words to express my concern, nor explain why the policies were damaging. Saying “something is this way,” is not as powerful as saying “something is wrong due to these 5 factors.”

On Tuesday, October 4th, U.S. and global media outlets (Reuters) announced plans by the U.S Congress for the design of a bill to pressure China to modify the value of the Yuan, the Chinese currency.

According to Reuters, the U.S. Senate voted to open debate on a bill allowing for the imposition of tariffs on consumer products entering the United States from countries deliberately undervaluing currencies.

People may read right past that comment; I own bias is people do read right past “tariff” comments, not understanding the implications.

A tariff is a tax placed on a good entering a country. The country making the good does not pay the tax. We do; American consumers pay the tax. When we decide to buy a Blu-Ray player, LCD or Plasma TV, the price we pay includes the tariff. The cost is passed to us. Essentially, as we notice prices increasing, we decide not to buy, or we decide to buy a cheaper competing product. But, we pay the price, using more of our income to buy consumer goods.

“What is wrong with that?” You ask. “Maybe if tariffs were high enough, jobs would reappear in the United States!”

Maybe. Just remember the tariff is a social tax, a form of Socialism, designed to ‘level out the labor market’.

“How can you say that? That sounds like crazy-talk!”

A tariff is a method governments have of manipulating the price of consumer products ABOVE the fair market value. For example, say Taiwan produces a Blu-Ray player and your price at Wal-mart is $128. Now, say, Taiwan also undervalues it’s currency. According the U.S. Congress, the Blu-Ray player will have a tax added to the price. Now that Blu-Ray player will cost you $140. You’ve just been removed of $12 of your disposable income because the Congress does not like the way Taiwan manages its money. And, more importantly, the fair market value of that device has now been manipulated. You might be cool with that; I just want you to know you are out $12.

The Better Question: Why Does China Undervalue Its Own Currency?

This is the question I wish someone would ask, simply because I want a public figure to validate my own knowledge.

OK, so the controversy is this: China keeps the Yuan cheap relative to other currencies so products made in China are less expensive and people around the world buy more stuff. Right? People in Germany, and France, and Sweden, and Canada buy stuff made in China because the stuff is cheap. Buying inexpensive stuff means you have more utility with your money, you can do more things with your money.

Somebody has to make the stuff we buy. Enter the Chinese worker. China has an enormous labor market. China has a population of about 1,300,000,000 people. About 50% of those are workers, or about 650,000,000.

In other words, the Chinese labor force is more than 2x’s as large as the entire population of the United States, and larger than the entire population of Europe.

Most of these workers are barely literate, illiterate, or working their way through school to become fully educated. But to find work for over 1/2 a billion people is an amazingly complex task.

An easy way to provide employment is to undervalue your currency. If products made in your country are cheap compared to elsewhere, you can sell more, which means making more, which means employing more people.

From the Chinese perspective, an undervalued currency makes sense because keeping workers employed and working is essential.

I envision if China decided to allow their currency to “float” and operate against global financial markets as other currencies, Chinese economic growth would drop from the 9-10% range experienced now, to 4-5%. The U.S. Congress would say 4-5% is acceptable. The Chinese workers would riot in the streets from being unemployed. I’m not sure I want 650,000,000 people pissed off at me.

What About the United States Currency?

The U.S. Congress telling China to revalue the Yuan comes off as disingenuous. The U.S. dollar is slightly undervalued against the European Union’s Euro. The European Union has voiced displeasure over the value of the U.S. Dollar as a low dollar against the Euro makes U.S. goods cheaper in Europe. On the other hand, European goods are more expensive in the U.S., thus we don’t buy as much.

But This Controversy Is About Job Creation!

In part, no doubt there is some truth to the Job Creation argument.

Even the Job Creation Argument needs examination, though.

Do this: visit the web site Learner.org, and watch the video, Guangdong: Globalization in the Pearl River Delta. Fast-forward to about the 7:00 minute mark. Those workers in the video are making shoes for Nike. Sitting at a shoe press for 8-10 hours per day.

That is the job the U.S. Congress wants you to have, sitting at a shoe press, the vertebrae in your back calcifying from hours of hunched-back sitting.

Really? That is the job Congress wants to bring back to the United States?

My point is this:

For the United States to maintain a technological advantage, to maintain a standard of living our parents have worked hard to achieve, we cannot cling to labor market philosophies and policies better suited for the 1950s. Our U.S. labor market needs to adapt to for the 2050s, and beyond. Those brute-force manufacturing jobs are better suited for countries with necessary manpower and wage flexibility. The United States should leave those jobs behind and focus on the future, not the past. We seem to be riding a horse into the future, seated backwards in the saddle, lamenting what has come before.

Manufacturing jobs will always be present in the United States. Making cars, trucks, washing machines, dryers, heavy equipment, items both large and small, simply makes economic sense.

However, some jobs really can go somewhere else, and I argue, the U.S. benefits by having those jobs leave.

Technorati Tags: education,labor,globalization,congress,currency,employment,jobs,unemployment

How Can I Be A Better Student?

A disturbing pathology has arisen within the American Educational System, both within K-12 and Higher Education. Policies implemented throughout all levels of the United States educational system and changes of attitudes within families are resulting in American students that are not adequately prepared for current or future employment, and worse, woefully ill-prepared to face the challenges of a 21st century multi-cultural globalized world. This is the first of a series of essays meant to identify weaknesses and offer solutions.

Honestly, unless one had a good teacher in HS, educated parents, or a close role model, the American Educational System has probably failed you, to some extent. Especially if this title drew your attention. And, I apologize, on behalf of educators everywhere. If I could go back in time, 20 years or so should do the trick, and be granted “Rule by Decree” powers, maybe your path would be more clear. I can’t do that, and now you – and no one else – is in charge of your life.

You can make tomorrow the first day of a new attitude, or Monday. Don’t put it off too long. Your future is at stake.

Here is advice, advice I have learned through my own mistakes, that I learned from others, from workshops, and from students. This advice will be controversial. Good decisions are not necessarily easy. In fact, there are no easy choices, and there is sacrifice, and trade-offs. You cannot eat your cake and have it, too.

1. School is your job. Multiply your course load by 3 and that is how many hours per week minimum dedicated to your education. For example, if you are taking 15hrs of classes, times 3, equals 45 hours. 37.5 hours is a full-time work week. If you also have a “job,” add those hours to 45; that is an accurate assessment of how busy you should be. If you have other activities eating away at your time, add those. Then, you have to eat, sleep, and other chores like grocery shopping. There is a real probability that you are stretched too thin, and stressed.
2. School is your job. Never miss class, unless you are ill and contagious. Other exceptions are field trips that are education-related. Unless you are a qualified doctor or donating an organ or bone marrow, family members can do fine without you. Another possible exception is a funeral. People who have weddings during the business cycle or academic calendar are only thinking of themselves. Dress appropriately for class, not in pajamas. Do not attend intoxicated. Educating yourself is in your own best interest. Prioritize your education accordingly.
3. Eliminate distractions. Social events, and social groups can be fun but ultimately they are a tremendous time-waster, and a huge distraction. Membership in a professional group is not the same. Professional groups work to your advantage. An example of a professional group includes the American Chemical Society, or the Institute of Civil Engineers. Focus on your academic career and you have a chance of graduating on-time and on-budget, perhaps even a semester early.
4. Eliminate Poisonous or Toxic People. Face facts; some people have toxic personalities. A person who says, “Let’s get drunk,” or “Let’s get high,” or “Let’s ditch class and go to the lake,” are signs that person is a toxic personality. A person who drops his or her emotional baggage on you is toxic. A person who tries to distract or belittle you from becoming educated is a toxic person. This person could be a so-called “friend” or a family member or someone in your community. I personally heard a pastor in church belittle education, saying that the Bible is the source of truth and knowledge, and science is wrong. Some ethnic groups face discrimination, bullying, and sometimes violence when members try to educate themselves. Blacks are often referred to as “Oreo,” for being “white” on the inside, “black” on the outside. Hispanics might be called “coconuts;” Asians are called “Twinkies.” All moronic labels; those people try to push others down, make them feel inferior. Cut them off, like the cancer they are. People that exhibit these traits are definitely poisonous, toxic, and will try to sabotage your success. Cutting them out of your life is not you being mean, you are standing up for yourself. Those people are self-centered, selfish, and irresponsible in attempting to ruin your life, hinder your success, and prevent you from working towards your own best interest.
5. Get your emotions under control. Faculty will often sound mean and uncaring. We aren’t all that way. We are not grown in test tubes. Some of us could use more tact, true. Bottom-line is that our job is to help you understand, test that understanding, and correct you when you mess up. We do not get paid for being nice or tactful, we get paid to pass along knowledge, test that you comprehend that knowledge, and inform you when you screw up. I apologize for my self and all other faculty across the United States that have hurt your feelings. Honestly, though, you should really set aside that “hurt” and listen to the criticism. The criticism may not sound nice and soothing, but that input is meant to make you better, and is meant to push and advance your interest. Faculty are your ally, as opposed to those toxic people in your life. Many of us have such twisted lives that the toxic people seem sane, and those that are trying to help us advance ourselves seem crazy and delusional.
   
   Consider your personal relationships. If your girlfriend or boyfriend takes off, dumps you, the world will not end. Chances are they were dead-weight anyway. People do not control your feelings, your emotions, unless you abdicate that power to him/her. Why would you do that? Why would you give a person that power? Conversely, you get to choose how you react. You might go through a break-up, but you get to decide how you react to that situation. People have the right to choose. And, if your boyfriend or girlfriend is toxic, you will be the one doing the breaking. Move on; work on you success, and be successful. Surround yourself with other successful people.
   
6. Sit in the front row. A few studies seem to indicate that your position in the classroom does not translate into better grades. A letter grade should not be the only measure of classroom success. Grades are used merely because grades are easy to measure. Students that sit in the front row are forced to be attentive simply by their proximity to the booming voice at the front of the room. Students on the front and second row pay attention, and ask questions. In other words, those minds are engaged, and that is what you want for yourself – an engaged brain.
7. Study. That may seem like a no-brainer, but students think reading is studying. Reading is the preliminary work that you do before studying. Like getting the shower water the proper temperature before showering. Studying is a broader topic that. Studying means placing yourself in the role of a research assistant, thinking from the perspective of a chemist, physicist, a nurse, or a social worker, and using the knowledge gained, to date, using knowledge gleaned from all of your courses. Studying is not merely highlighting key words and phrases. A key word or phrase is like a fingerprint at a crime scene, a data point; now what are you going to do with that tidbit of knowledge?
8. Ask questions in class. Ask for clarification, ask for examples, ask “what if?” Or, “why is it that way?” Asking questions does to things. First, your brain is obviously engaged, and being engaged, means your are very likely to remember the content and context of the discussion. Two, you come to the instructor’s attention. Remember, we are not the enemy. One day, you may need an employment reference, or character reference, or a background check. Faculty are your friend. Really.
9. Use downtime wisely. Review notes while waiting on an oil change, while sitting in the doctor’s office. If you get to class early, review the notes from the previous class. 
10. Don’t study in bed. Don’t eat in bed. Don’t sleep at your desk. See, our body forms patterns pretty easy, and then breaking bad behaviors can be even worse, and take longer. Since you sleep in bed, your brain knows that sleep is coming up soon. Study in bed and your brain isn’t really going to be focused on retaining knowledge. Your brain is going to be distracted by prepping your body for sleep. Don’t confuse your living patterns. Eat at the table, studying at the table or desk, sleep in bed.

Ten ways of becoming a better student I have laid out for you. You may have seen all or some before. Some may seem selfish. They are not selfish. We have been poorly coached, or led to believe that being co-dependent with other people and their problems means we are being a good person. Myth, all myth. The problem of toxic people is a subtle and insidious problem everyone faces, and may be the greatest of all issues, actually. You will find, though, that nearly all successful people overcome obstacles, self-made obstacles, to achieve the level of success they have today. By putting your interests first, making progress towards positive goals, you will encourage people around you in positive ways. Toxic people will immediately reveal themselves by making fun of you, calling you selfish, arrogant, and accusing you of trying to be better than everyone else. If that happens to you, then you are probably on the way to being successful.

Congratulations!

Technorati Tags: k-12 education,study skills,student behavior,good students,higher education,secondary education,toxic people

Americans & Job Loss: Assessing Responsibility

Labor and all associated traits, components, and concerns are of immense interest to economic geographers. Of particular interest is the movement of labor-intensive manufacturing jobs from historically manufacturing based economies, such as the United States, to low-wage, low-skill, low-income states, like China, Vietnam, and other Southeast Asian countries.

Low-income states, such as Vietnam, China, or Cambodia, represent pools of labor willing to work for pennies an hour. The alternative for these workers could literally mean no income for the day, and a few dollars per week. Employment earning $10/day or more might represent 5-10x increase over their previous earnings. Who would not want that type of earnings change, right?

Regardless of the potential of worker exploitation - that may not be for our Western temperament to judge - local labor and people do benefit from these employment opportunities. And, there may be other issues associated with the globalization of labor, perhaps dilution of culture, or loss of local culture. Some geographers note that these fears may be overblown. Local cultures do not throw away their culture in favor of a new "normal," but adapt to new traits, called "indigenization." For instance, McDonalds builds, yet offers a completely meat-free menu due to local customs. Or, offers lamb or falafel items.

When jobs traditionally held by Americans move abroad, many Americans want to point fingers, want to blame someone. People blame CEOs, blame "greedy Corporate America," for selling out our American jobs to China. The problem with this Blame Game is that many other factors are selectively ignored or are not realized merely out of blind ignorance.

In response to our bias, I have compiled a list of parties that should share in the collective blame:

1. American consumers
2. Unions
3. Shareholders
4. Market Analysts/Stock Brokers
5. CEOs/Corporations

And, pretty much in that order.

Unions
Unions negotiate for vacations, sick leave, and retirement benefits. One of the biggest issues with General Motors was not simply the fact that people found their vehicles undesirable, but was compounded by their huge and extravagant benefits and entitlement packages enjoyed by former employees. Unions protect ineffective employees. Ineffective employees hurt efficiency besides damaging workplace morale. Unions interfere with a businesses need to move dexterously to address changes in markets forces. And, negotiate for higher wages, when higher wages might not be warranted.

Shareholders
Stockholders in a company have at least two simple desires. First, stockholders want share prices to increase. Second, they want to get paid a dividend. A company needs to continually examine profitability to ensure those events occur, to keep investors happy. If you have a mutual fund, an IRA, a 401k, this means you.

Stock Brokers/Financial Analysts
Stock Brokers and Financial Analysts set and manipulate share prices. Any who says they do not doesn't pay attention to Jim Cramer, or Squawkbox (MSNBC). At one time, a CEO who was interviewed could expect the share prices of his company to increase dramatically in the first three months after his appearance on MSNBC. This effect was even given a name, "The Squawkbox Effect" (CNNMoney). These Financial Actors can influence markets and economic sectors simply by making comments in favor of, or opposed to, movements by corporations. These Actors seem to reward nimble corporate market adaptations, and seem not to reward long-term plans that include innovation. Conversely, these actors also seem to expect corporations like Microsoft, Apple, HP, or Motorola, to be constant innovators. Corporations that make significant changes to their business model, either through selling off divisions, corporate mergers, or the acquisition of other companies or technologies, may not result in a favorable response. Therefore, these Financial Actors can exert influence in how a company examines its finances.

CEOs / Board of Directors
CEOs and Board of Directors are probably the least to blame. I'm sure that sounds contrary to popular opinion. But, ask yourself this, For what purpose are CEOs hired? To make a company profitable, and, keep a company profitable. Simply put, they are hired to make money. And, if reducing the costs of labor help make the company more profitable, then the shareholders - the investors win. If you have a mutual fund, for retirement, for education, then you win. Profits keep shareholders happy. Profits keep the Board of Directors happy. How does a CEO manage to keep everyone happy? That is why they get paid the big bucks, why are they rewarded handsomely when they succeed, and why they do not get paid as much when they fail. Not as much when they fail.

Consumers (You and I)
I saved the best for last. Best, and the top reason jobs move abroad. Yes, you and I are pretty much the reason why jobs move overseas. How dare you! you might scream. Before you light the stake, follow this rationale.

Americans, in general, have become Irrational Consumers. I enter into evidence the "Average American Credit Card Debt: $15,799 (creditcards.com) . I also enter the "Mortgage Crisis of 2008" as my second exhibit. My third exhibit is the inability of the U.S. Congress to efficiently manage Revenue v. Debt over the last 30 years, and for their complicity in encouraging Americans to "buy" and adopt horrible financial behaviors. I could also add in our reticence to restrain our thirst for oil, that we are the largest consumers of electricity in the world despite having only 5% of the population.

Rational Consumers will purchase what they can afford, through savings, or through buying off-brands. Rational consumers will abide by common financial practices of setting aside 10%-15% of income to retirement. Rational consumers will maintain a debt load of less than 30% of income. Rational consumers will use the rule of 2-1/2x's annual income for determining the affordability of housing.  Many financial web sites are available to assist people in making good choices.

People do not want to make good choices, or do not have the experience in making good choices. Shopping at Wal-mart or Target or CostCo may superficially seem like a good cost-saving measure, but not if you spend more than earn.

However, people do seem to want value for their money, even if that money is really VISA or MASTERCARD. That purchasing power, whether credit/credit cards or cash is The Voice that CEOs listen to. In the 1970s and early 1980s, televisions were available from both United States and Asian manufacturers. Eventually, U.S. makers were forced to close factories in the U.S. and contract with factories in China, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Japan. Were their TVs better? No, not really. But, they were cheaper. Same quality, but less expensive.

Thus, if you were shopping in the 1980s, you might go to K-Mart. In the electronics department of K-Mart, you would see a U.S.-made RCA TV for $199.99. Next to the RCA is a similar TV made by Japan's LG or Sony for $169.99. All things being equal, which one did you buy? I'll tell you; you bought the Sony and saved $30. You, and a bunch of other Americans opted for the less expensive TVs. RCA, after a few years of seeing profits decline, had a difficult choice to make. Close; or stay in business but move manufacturing to Asia. RCA got the message, though; Americans would rather have a cheaper TV than a more expensive TV made in the United States.

The Price of Labor is crucial in remaining competitive. See, raw materials are pretty much priced on the global market. Everyone pays pretty much the same price for leather, fabric, plastic, etc., all the inputs for products. The other major cost for products is transportation. While transportation can be expensive, it is expensive for everyone equally. That leaves labor.

Americans require benefits, health insurance, dental insurance, eyecare insurance. Americans require paid vacation and paid sick leave and maternity leave. Americans want retirement plans. Americans want a minimum wage and regular raises. Americans want unemployment insurance and retraining benefits when we lose our jobs. None of this is free.

Furthermore, as none of this is free, someone has to pay for it. That someone is you, but not exclusively you. Your employer also chips in. In fact, you as an employee cost your employer an addition 25% to 40% above and beyond your wage (MIT Sloan School of Management). In other words, if you make $9/hr, you are costing your employer at least $12/hr.

Pretend you are an employer, you have your own company making TVs. You now have a choice: are you going to try to make TVs in the United States, and pay your workers minimum wage (good luck) $7.35/hr, which is a cost to you of about $9/hr per employee, $72/day per employee, $1,440/month per employee? Or, are you going to hire a Chinese worker for $4/day, or maybe $120/month? Because that is the reality.

Well that isn't fair! I've heard that, too.

Do you want a Free Market economy, or not? If so, that has to apply to labor, as well. Otherwise, as a U.S. company owner you might petition the U.S. government to pass an excise tax on incoming products from China. That might be good for you; a TV coming in from China now has $30 added on to it so now it is equal in cost to yours. But, when Americans find out that they are paying $30 more for that TV than what they could pay, someone is going to be upset.

In the Grander Scheme of Things, eventually those workers in Vietnam, Malaysia, wherever, will eventually want higher wages. When that happens, those worker might get higher wages. The cost of those additional wages will be passed along to the consumers, us. This is happening already in the maquiladoras along the U.S./Mexico border. And, it is happening in isolated cases, in southeast China. People upset over their wages, or working conditions, are striking, acting-out. Apple, for example, has negotiated with a Chinese factory, FoxConn, to improve the working environment. That is one isolated case.

Bottom line is that you and I, our parents, our grandparents, and our kids and grandchildren, all made choices of buying the best and cheapest stuff that matched our budgets, or that we could squeeze on our VISA or Discover Card. And, doing that helped move American jobs overseas.

Earthquakes and the Richter Scale

Why rounding some numbers is simply ludicrous

Earthquakes. The mere mention of one can send a person into shaking tremors. New York City and Washington DC experience a moderate earthquake and one would think Armageddon is upon us. Meanwhile, Sendei, Japan will require a decade or more to recover from their catastrophic 9.0Mg earthquake.

The Richter Scale is not a straight-line scale. The Richter Scale is logarithmic. In other words, a 4Mg earthquake is not twice as strong as a 2Mg earthquake. A 4Mg earthquake releases more than 60x's as much energy as a 2Mg earthquake.

I was watching and reading about coverage of the East Coast earthquake. People ranting about "earthquake preparedness." Newscasters mistakenly "rounding" the 5.9 earthquake to a 6.0. Preparing for an earthquake in DC makes about as much sense to me as having people in Montana prepare for a hurricane.

But, it did get me to wondering; "what is the difference in energy between a 5.9 and a 6.0 earthquake?"

Every 0.2 increase in earthquake magnitude corresponds to a doubling of energy released. Thus, a 5.9 earthquake releases TWICE the energy of a 5.7 earthquake.

Therefore, a magnitude cannot be "rounded up" or "rounded down."

Check out this web site "WolframAlpha" for an earthquake energy calculator.

Technorati Tags: earthquake,virginia,washington dc,usgs,richter scale

Put That Cell Phone AWAY!!

Why using a smartphone, netbook, or laptop in class can get you into real trouble.

A few years ago, I was at in-service training for part-time lecturers at a local community college. Our facilitator was going over the process of syllabus creation, what to include, etc. She said, “you can even go so far as to ban the use of cell phones in class.” One of my cohorts in the room, an elderly woman who looked like she would be right at home in a Catholic boarding school wielding a long and substantial ruler for whacking kids, stated, “I give my class one warning and then I take the phone away.”

At events such as these, I sit up front. Instructors are always telling students, “sit up front if you want to learn and earn a good grade.” I practice what I and most others teach. Funny, though, at academic meetings the back chairs seem to always fill first …

I whirled to address her, as I had something to say about her attitude. “If I could say something. First, set a precedent of decorum and etiquette for the class. Tell them, “You are an adult, now. High school is behind you. If you would like for me to treat you like a child, I will, but I would rather stand in front of a fellow adult. In fact, we are all adults here, and you should be expected to be treated as one. Conduct yourself accordingly.”

"I went on to state, “I have no problems with cell phone use in my classes, as I address my students as adults. I tell them I do not mind them having their cell phones out, as long as they are on silent. Many of my students truly are adults, with children, may be part-time First Responders for emergencies, may have a wife or girlfriend who is pregnant. It is unreasonable to place such onerous restrictions on such an important device. I tell them that if they get a call, to quietly leave and take the call outside. You would have to pry my phone from my cold dead fingers before I would give it up to you.”

Set the tone for use, and that eliminates 99.9% of problems. I did have one student Spring 2011 that sat in the front row and took a call, never getting up from her seat, in the middle of my lecture. I stopped my lecture, “Are you serious?! You’re going to sit right there and talk on the phone smack in the middle my lecture? Seriously, get out!” And, she looked at me like I was the one with the problem. Those types will never understand.

With this new school year opening, I have been reading syllabi dropped around campus by careless students. Many of these syllabi, in fact every single one (except mine), has a “Cell Phone / Smart Phone / Laptop / Netbook / Tablet / Wireless Electronic Device” policy. I think a student could literally use the Two-Cans-and-a-String social network and perhaps be safe.

These policies state: “If you have your {inset device type here} out and are using it during my lecture, I will take it. On the Second Violation, the device will remain confined for 24hrs within {insert academic office here}. On the Third Violation, the device will remain confined for X days within {insert academic office here}.

Wow! Really? I have heard of that in elementary school, but college? Can an instructor legally do that?

The answer is, Yes.

Most universities have policies these days that stipulate an instructor has the right to demand a student turnover electronic devices should said devices be used against stated class or university policies. These policies have been challenged in court (New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325, 340-341 (1985). Also, read “Safe Schools, Cell Phones, and the Fourth Amendment” by Bernard James. Another very recent example is from Illinois State University, Education Law and Policy Journal, January 2011.

While these cases apply mostly to Secondary Education, there is no reason to suspect these cases cannot be used in Higher Education.

Furthermore, not only can an electronic device be confiscated, that device could also fall under “Warrantless Search” doctrine. The legal basis is this: a student has just been observed engaged in inappropriate behavior, using an electronic device against policy. Therefore, because of that one infraction, the administrator can legally assume other infractions have occurred. Then, the device itself can be opened, activated, and searched.

The student might cry that his or her Fourth Amendment Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure has just been violated. State Supreme Courts from New Jersey, Arkansas, Illinois, among others, have clearly sided with law enforcement on this issue. 

So, when an instructor issues the warning that all electronic devices should be turned off, placed in stand-by, and put away, the best idea is to do just that.

Unless, of course, you are a law student and you want to test your legal chops against the State.

Good luck.

Technorati Tags: cell phones,smart phones,confiscation,legal,law,fourth amendment,seizure,search,education,college,university

What Exactly Is A Syllabus?

School is upon us, and those on the front lines of educating the masses are preparing for the onslaught of people seeking to add value to their knowledge base. Some people are simply needing to create a knowledge base. Not only are educators concerned with the precise means of communicating knowledge, through lessons, but also in meeting the bureaucratic needs of the administration. One of those needs is a syllabus.

For decades, the syllabus has been an expected document, an anticipated document, a document that students greet with chagrin and consternation. What is a syllabus, though?

The word, "syllabus," arrives from the Latin, which was probably incorrectly interpreted from the Greek. In any event, "syllabus," means "list." Makes sense as a syllabus is really a list of policies, procedures, instructions, and other information pertaining to a course.

Thus, a syllabus is simply a set of policies, procedures, guidelines, and other course-related information.

Over the last couple years, I have heard many administrators referring to a syllabus as a "contract between you and your students." I have heard a few faculty describe a syllabus in this way, too. In fact, the other night, at an educators meeting, an administrator held a 14-page syllabus aloft, proclaiming the syllabus as, "a contract between you and your students."

Over the years of teaching, and as a student, I never made the leap that a syllabus was a contract, thinking that the contents of those pages merely outlined the details of the course. Students need to know, to some degree, what the course entails. As an educator, I need something to remind myself on occasion what the course entails.

These recent comments made me consider my understanding of what a syllabus actually is, though. I did some research, googling terms like "syllabus," and "contract," "legal document." What I found was an interesting and strange disconnect.

The court system does not view syllabi as legal documents. Syllabi are not contracts, and faculty are not legally bound by syllabi.

Of much concern to me is that institutions, i.e. administrators, are calling syllabi "contracts." Doing so creates a mistaken perception among faculty that have entered onto a contract with their students. Students mistakenly believe they can hold their faculty legally liable for holding to the language of the syllabus. Many, many school sites I visited on the Internet discuss the syllabus as a legal document.

Alternatively, the legal side says, No; syllabi do not fit the definition of a contract. As such, a faculty person is not bound to their syllabi. Students have no legal basis to sue if the course misses a day, if a chapter is omitted, if point values are modified, etc. A faculty person who engages in a behavior of considerable syllabus modification during the course of a semester may face angry blow-back from students, though. However, the courts have sided with faculty on these occasions.

The question becomes, who is correct? The answer is easy. U.S. Courts and the legal system, as it stands today, do not view syllabi as enforceable contract. An administrator holding a syllabus to the sky, as if those pages are the academic equivalent of the Ten Commandments, proclaiming the academic holiness of those pages as "your unbreakable covenant between you and your students," simply does not make the syllabus a contract. A professor who says, "my syllabus is a contract between me and you," is not creating a contract between himself or herself and the students in the classroom.

OK, so I say, “the syllabus is not a contract.” You should say, “But, why not?”

First, let me begin by saying I am not a lawyer, nor pretending to be one.

A contract has four parts (some ascribe as many as six parts http://bit.ly/qlS6t0): An Offer, Consideration, the Parties, and a Legal Objective. The syllabus cannot be a contract simply because the instructor is not offering anything. A syllabus is not an offer for the course. That offer was made by the university during the enrollment process. Part of the Offer is “acceptance.” Acknowledging the rule and policies of the course does not equivocate to accepting the offer of the course. The student is merely acknowledging the rules & policies of the course. Again, the offer of the course was tendered by the university, not the instructor.

The syllabus implies no “consideration.” Grades could be considered a “consideration,” something of value offered in return for something else of value. The student, though, is not required do anything. The student may fail the course, but the student made a choice that did not nullify or break a “contract” as there is no contract to enforce. While the instructor might be mandated by the university to perform duties for the course, the student is not required to do anything. In fact, the student could potentially absolve his or herself from any responsibility by dropping the course.

As for the Parties, the instructor engages in the creation of the syllabus with no input from the student or students. Therefore, acting alone, the instructor creates a syllabus outlining the details of the course, in accordance with the guidelines of the academic institution.

Finally, the question is then, “what is the legal objective of the syllabus?” Typically, contracts not only outline the duties of each party, consideration or compensation, but also provide for damages or penalties should the contract be broken or voided. The contract for the course is between the student and the university. The contract goes into effect when the student registers for the course. Should a student withdraw, the contract between the student and the university comes into play to determine the affects on financial aid, GPA, etc. The syllabus, being a document that outlines course material, objectives, rules, and policies, and part of the creative license afforded to faculty, has no legal objective, per se. The syllabus can, as I have found, and will cover in another article, contain elements of legal policies, such as the confiscation of cell phones, and other electronic devices. But, the syllabus is still not a contract.

Merely saying a syllabus is a contract does not make it one.

Over the decades Of experience I have in education, I have often heard students comments along the lines of, "She has to cover that. It is in her syllabus;" or, "it's not on the syllabus, so I don't have to do it;" and the "it's in the syllabus that way, so it cannot be changed."

The technically correct responses to the above are: "No, she doesn't" and "Yes, you do" and "Yes, it can." The reality is that faculty will often consider the effect of their choice in terms of student reaction. Faculty do not generally punish students, but will take measures to address concerns or inadequacies they see in classes or students. Those modifications might upset students. Ultimately, they are designed to help, not harm. Generally.

I author this entry for mostly to solidify the notion of what a syllabus is for my own benefit. additionally, maybe a search engine will pick this up and students and faculty can use this to educate themselves. I will provide links at some future date, to provide evidence.

ADDENDUM

I mentioned above I would provide some links.

This link http://bit.ly/nvXIhP (United States Jurisprudence) outlines a theoretical situation between a student and professor using historical court cases to arrive at a verdict.

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece March 14th, 2008, that addresses such a topic. I cannot post that article here as the article was “premium” content. Briefly, the article essentially discusses what I have shared above, that is, while administrators would like to think that a syllabus is a contract between a faculty person and students, the courts do not side with that opinion.

The true contract exists between the university/college and the student. The university extends an offer of a course at a price. The student then can accept the conditions of that offer. As I stated above, calling a “syllabus” a “contract” does not make it such.

Administrators that continue calling syllabi contracts are perpetuating misinformation that, in my opinion, is detrimental to both faculty and students.

Technorati Tags: education,syllabus,legal document,legality,contract

Mesmerized by Oil

Based on “America’s Oil Imports: A Self-Inflicted Burden,” by Vaclav Smil, University of Manitoba, Annuals of the Association of American Geographers, v101, no. 4, July 2011.

Americans are mesmerized by oil. A real addiction. Politicians fight to open ANWAR like junkies trying to figure out just exactly where they can get a reliable supply of drugs. Or, they cast about the continental shelf, like a junkie on his knees trying to find that last cocaine rock that rolled under the couch. Digging for change among the cushions hoping to scrape together enough money for his next fix. Really. Listen to the political tenor surrounding oil on Fox News. Then, turn over to A&E and watch Intervention. The discussions on Fox sound like the arguments that drug addicts use on Intervention.

Smil lays out an argument that America is to blame for its own dependence on oil. We, in fact, are our own worst enemies for driving up the cost of gasoline. Not OPEC, not British Petroleum (BP), not even the oil lobby. Just simple, average, everyday you-and-me Americans. We are addicted to oil as addicts are addicted to meth, or crack. Automobiles convey the drugs into our system, just as needles push heroine into the bloodstream of an addict.

Yes, America – we are oil whores.

We absolutely need our Hummers, and our Cadillacs, and our giant Suburbans. Those are God-given rights, laid clean-out in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Hey, I’m right there with everyone else; I drive a Dodge Durango, one of the very worst offenders. Yes, I see the hypocrisy. Do you see the hypocrisy in yourself, though?

During the first 10 years of the 21st century, Americans spent 1.7 trillion dollars on buying foreign oil. That is $1,700 billion dollars.

In 2008 alone, Americans spent $350 billion dollars on foreign oil.

In 1975, the United States was the world’s largest producer of oil. In this year, we would be passed by the USSR. In 1977, the United States would be passed by Saudi Arabia.

As of 2010, Saudi Arabia ranks first, Russia ranks 2nd, and the United States ranks 3rd. About 1.5 million barrels of oil per day production separates 1st place from 3rd place. If that sounds like a lot, it isn’t. In 2009, the United States was using about 18.7 million barrels of oil per day. So the difference between production in Saudi Arabia and the United States works out to be about 1hr 15minutes in usage time.

According to our own Energy Information Administration (link) the United States consumes more oil than China, Japan, Brazil, and Canada combined.

Let’s add up some populations: China (1,300 million) + Japan (127 million) + Brazil (190 million) + Canada (35 million) = 1.652 billion people. Or, roughly about 25% of the world’s population.

5% of the world’s population, that’s the United States, uses the equivalent energy of 25% of the world’s population.

And, if you listen to us on the television, you’d think that it was our Manifest Destiny, handed down by God, to consume as much as we want.

Here is what makes us appear even worse than we really are, according to Smil.

The United States is the 3rd largest country, in area, on the planet, behind Russian (1), and Canada (2). We are also the world’s 3rd most populous country, behind China (1), and India (2). One might think, “Hey, we have a big country. We need transportation in order to get around and do stuff. That takes oil. Therefore, we use a lot, and rightfully so.”

One fact in that statement is true: transportation is necessary. In 2009, transportation accounted for 75% of domestic oil consumption, i.e. fuel costs. That’s right, you and me, driving around in our giant pickups, and Hummers, and Durangos. We use 75% of the oil this country supposedly needs. Not the Department of Defense, not heating or cooling energy needs. Us, going to the grocery store, soccer practice, or our trucks moving objects from point A to point B.

Superficially, the argument sounds fine. But that argument is flawed. The United States is not uniformly populated. Most of us, in fact, live on the East Coast. OK, not really. But, look at this map:

Look at the red peaks. Those peaks tell the map reader where people live. As you can see most Americans live east of the Mississippi River. We could narrow that even further, really, and say that about 50% of Americans, 155 million people, or about the population of Japan, live north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi.

Such a concentration of humanity in one place lends itself to multi-modes of public transportation, specifically high-speed rails.

And, I, being a geographer, should have thought about this point, and only by reading Smil’s paper, did this point reach my brain.

Despite this near-perfect environment for moving people from place to place, efficiently, and at a decent price point, and environmentally sound, Americans would, and have, elected to confined themselves to their shiny V8 chariots of selfishness. Remember, I drive one, too.

Imagine taking a nice, clean, safe, high-speed train (HST) from New York to Washington, D.C., or Boston, or Philadelphia. You would have uninterrupted cell phone and wi-fi coverage. Tokyo, Japan has that, why can’t we? Once at your destination, rent an economical SMART car, a Prius, or Honda Hybrid.

Imagine the jobs created from constructing these rail systems. The people then employed to operate them. The growth pole areas that would definitely arise at stations along the rail paths. Imagine the use of technology, advances in technology, the increase in productivity. And, ultimately, the resulting savings from not using petroleum. How much different could $1.7 trillion dollars have been used in the United States? How many jobs does that represent? Money literally burnt in engines around the country.

No. Americans do not want that. Not enough, anyway. Many of us are still stuck in the euphoria of the 1950s and early 1960s. Ideals and models of behavior that have been passed along, “inherited culture,” we geographers call it.

Drunk on our own kool-aid. Slimy, oily, kool-aid.

Technorati Tags: energy,oil,oil producers,high-speed rail,jobs,economic growth,china,japan,russia