The Dilution of Higher Education

This has been a week from Stupidville.

Let’s see if I can describe the situation. I’ll need to describe events and motivations leading up to the recent controversy, and the immediate results and subsequent modifications I have had to make in order to make one of the institutions I am employed by happy. As always, I will try to place my interaction into a larger educational context. To hint at my summary, administrators at institutions of so-called higher learning are themselves responsible for the dilution and failure of the U.S. educational system.

I am very active in online education. Since 2004, I’ve taught approximately 32 sections of a world geography course for community colleges and a university. Examinations are always a sensitive component of any online course, i.e. how does one maintain integrity in an online exam when the student is miles away and unsupervised?

Faculty have adopted several positions to address maintaining assessment integrity. Exams are offered for a limited time, usually 24-48 hours. Exams are limited in duration, typically 90 minutes to two hours. A rule-of-thumb is used to determine test length. A student is provided 1-1/2 to 3 minutes per question; multiply by the number of questions and you arrive at the time duration for any exam. Additionally, a student gets one attempt. A single attempt is offered to avoid a student progressing through an exam, reading and answering questions, then closing their browser to shutdown the exam. The student then emails the instructor saying such as, “My browser just went away while I was taking the exam. Will you please reset my exam.”

Students have devised many ways around online assessments. Students will work in groups. Students will gather to watch one student take an exam, then the remaining students will take their exam. The group will take turns taking exams so none will suffer but one poor attempt.

“My browser just went away while I was taking the exam. Will you please reset my exam.”

Students will take screenshots or cut and paste exam text into a text document; then, the exam will be closed, the answers investigated, the instructor emailed, and the exam reset.

Students will never read or perhaps even buy the textbook. Students will immediately engage an exam or writing assignment in one browser window while using another browser window to Google answers. Often, they will use Firefox and Chrome, or some combination of two browsers in order to avoid a potential interruption by using Tabbed Browsing.

Students will rally themselves into groups to take exams. In the event an instructor has implemented a limited reset policy students will work as a team to circumvent the reset policy. For instance, a professor may have a “one reset policy,” i.e. the student receives one free reset for any exam for the semester. The professor may have, say, four exams for the course. The first student takes the exam until the end while making notes for the remaining team members. At the end, the student will kill the attempt and request his/her reset. Student Two will use the notes from Student One and take the assessment. Student Two will then take the second assessment. At the end Student Two will kill the attempt and request his/her free reset. Student Two will then distribute notes to the remaining team members.

Students will take an exam all the through to the second-to-last question and note the feedback answers. The browser is then closed, which ends the exam. The instructor is then contacted and a request for a reset is made.

“Students will rally themselves into groups to take exams.”

If these scenarios I outline seem far-fetched, all have already been documented “in the wild,” meaning students are working as teams at colleges and universities across the country to circumvent online testing.

The students who suffer are the honest ones who actually perform the required assignments. Some students in remote area, such as rural counties, also lack the physical social network to be a part of one of these testing teams.

Historically, I always allowed my students multiple attempts at quizzes and exams as I figured there was no way to really police the exam environment. Also, and based on previous experience, the network technology did not really exist to provide a stable connection over 90 minutes for a student to take an exam without some glitch shutting down the exam.

During the spring and summer of 2012, after considerable internal debate, I opted to implement a “no reset policy” for my exams. Many factors were considered in my decision. I personally took several Blackboard assessments, both my own testing and online assessments provided by the community colleges. I experienced flawless performance throughout. People I am familiar with taking classes also have experience success in taking online exams which last longer than 1 hour; some lasting longer than 2 hours. I have also heard students inform their peers how they were able to re-take an exam by closing their browser and claiming a “glitch kicked me off.” Based on the factors I described I decided to implement my own “no reset policy.”

The “No reset policy” is not unique to me. “One attempt” or sometimes called “One-shot attempts” are extremely common among university faculty. Students around me have complained about faculty who offer only two online exams from which the lion’s share of the grade is determined and have had some “glitch” interrupt the exam. Responses by faculty to queries about re-taking or re-opening the exam vary from silence to a simple “no.” But, a simple google of “online education exam reset policy” should provide enough examples.

Technically, no way exists to filter a student with a legitimate technical issue from a student who is gaming an online course. The technical issues manifest in precisely the same way whether the student is cheating or honestly has a real technical issue. Only an environmental interruption can be corroborated, a regional power outage, a regional disconnection of Internet access such as a fiber cut, a closure of a computer laboratory, or some other disruption at the institution. Those interruptions can be verified. Similarly, an ISP can offer a report in the event of an interruption of service.

A student sitting at home, with limited exception, has no ability to offer corroboration. A letter from a parent who has a vested interest in having their child succeed is not an unbiased instrument.

Many institutions of higher learning leave the policy of exam resets to the discretion of the faculty. Faculty are given ultimate sway in deciding the fate of a student who has become shutout of an exam. Faculty would like to believe students are honest actors in the taking of exams, but the evidence is against the student. All one must do is contemplate your own education to find validity in my statement.

Can you say you never witnessed nor experienced cheating in a college classroom? I know for a fact fraternities and sororities maintain files for all faculty and all courses. I know, because my fraternity did; we maintain several file cabinets worth of returned exams. Fraternity members would hire a brother to write a research paper, or hire a sorority sister to write a paper. Cheating was endemic within the entire Greek system. And, I also know the pattern of behavior persists.

My comments are not meant to simply indict the Greek system; social fraternities are simply a good example. In the Era of Online Social Networks, students across the board are organizing themselves via Facebook, and using Google Docs, SkyDrive, and Dropbox to organize and share coursework.

Thus, faculty are faced with few good options for policing the integrity of their online exams. The “no reset” policy may sound draconian yet few options exist.

The implications for online learning are staggering when considered against protecting the integrity of the tools which are designed to measure a student’s competency. When those tools are compromised, no entity benefits.

Last week was spent in a week-long debate regarding my “no reset” policy for my online exams. Controversy was ignited by a lone student who protested not being able to re-take his exam after being kicked off Blackboard. I said,

No, I’m sorry; I have no way to know if you had a legitimate technology issue, if you were googling-for-answers, of simply decided if the exam was too difficult and closed your browser. Furthermore, you read my syllabus and recognized my policy. You took my syllabus quiz, therefore implicitly accepting my conditions. I also provided specific directions, suggestions, and cautions in my course video (posted on YouTube) and also in my Blackboard tutorial (also posted on YouTube).

The student appealed to both the dean and the Vice-President of Online Learning. While the dean did not feel like my policy was “fair” she admitted my syllabus made a clear statement.

The Vice-President of Online Learning offered a different viewpoint. I paraphrase:

Since there is no way to tell whether or not the student suffered a legitimate technological glitch, the student should be granted another attempt. Any student which appeals your “no reset” policy is going to win the appeal.

There are at least three fundamental concerns with the position of the VP-OL. The most obvious concern is any student who complains about the closure of an exam, for nearly any reason, will potentially be allowed to re-take the exam. A subset concern to the negation of the “no reset” policy means the student can have as many resets as the student requires to complete the exam.

A second concern suggests the syllabus is not worth the paper upon which it is printed, not if an administrator can negate conditions, at will. Also, their ability to do negate syllabi conditions undermines every argument “a syllabus is a contract.” No, a syllabus cannot be a contract if an actor not party to the conditions of the syllabus can negate any or all aspects of the syllabus.

A third concern is the fundamental undermining of academic integrity which occurs when faculty are no longer able to control the integrity of the assessments they are charged to create and score, in many cases for “quality assurance” for accrediting agencies. Faculty are charged with assessing students, measuring student competency, for reports which are generated to satisfy agencies which accredit colleges and universities. Student are able to achieve higher scores; higher scores become integrated into measurements of student competency; measurements are passed along to state, federal, and accrediting agencies. Funding, recognition, and awards are then based on the accumulated data.

Flawed data.

Now, administrators become complicit in the dilution of education.

Faculty are then faced with controversy on two fronts. On one front, administrators negate policies written into syllabi which are deemed unfair and side with student upon appeal. On the other front, students can spend an hour or so circumventing an exam, working alone or with a team, to cheat.

Policies and attitudes described above then run the distinct possibility of achieving normalcy within our U.S. society. Students, the beneficiaries of benign administrators today, then see no harm in falsifying data later when hired into positions of responsibility. Students who were beneficiaries of appeals, or of team-cheating, realize the power of group-think to find loopholes around real business, finance, or political rules and regulations.

Ethics are undermined, and society suffers real problems. We are seeing evidence of unethical behavior which began well before employment. I would wager Wall Street financial cheats did not arrive at Wall Street with rigid ethical backbones. No, they cheated or found loopholes, or leverage social network connections get achieve their positions. Examples do not need to extend to Wall Street. School districts have been found cheating on No Child Left Behind test scores. Colleges and universities have cheated on scores to fraudulently obtain state and federal funding.

I offer my comments simply as an contemporary anecdote of one atomic bit in the fracturing of the U.S. education infrastructure. As our culture adopts and embraces online learning we must be very careful our attempts to share educational opportunities do not become so dilute as to make online learning of questionable value, at best, and worthless, at worst.

PAX

del.icio.us Tags: higher education,education,academic honesty,plagiarism,cheating,Google,Firefox,Chrome

Education is a Matter of National Security

Governments are often criticized for working towards the goal of keeping their citizens ignorant. “We will tell you all you need to know.” Or, “It’s a matter of national security. We cannot tell you why. Its on a need-to-know basis.”

In Russia, the Putin regime essentially controls the media. Russia is one of the least safe places in the world for journalists to operate. North Korea has one TV station controlled by the government, and one newspaper controlled by the government.

Governments which do not support education only damage their populations, promoting and actively supporting ignorance.

Furthermore, people who support politicians who support the promulgation of ignorance deserve the government they get. However, as I am also a part of society occupied by people who support ignorance and those who support ignorance, I have something to say about that.

Take for example the words of Paul Broun (R-Georgia).

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try and keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Paul Broun is a member of the Senate’s Science and Technology Committee. He goes on to say,

“You see, there’s a lot of scientific data that I’ve found as a scientist that this really is a young earth,' Broun told the crow. 'I don’t believe that the earth is but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was made in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible tells us.”

Here is a perfect example of someone who does not need to be on a science committee and someone who advocates ignorance. By the same token, he should also support slavery, as God also tells slaves to obey their master.

Todd Akin (R-Missouri) has gained notoriety based on his belief woman who get pregnant from a rape must have actually wanted to be raped.

Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) says he will "..will do anything short of shooting them” with regards to illegal or undocumented people living in the United States. He also condemns military cuts. Obviously, protecting our ignorance is of prime importance to him.

Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has this to say about climate change:

“I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine.”

Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) even has an entire page on his House web site devoted to denial of climate science.

“Too often, when congress is asked to pass environmental legislation, the legislation is based on emotional junk science rather than data based on reproducible, rigorous, tested, peer-reviewed results.”

To which I say, stop cutting Education. See, one of the downstream effects of cutting Education, is that you make a limited resource even more scarce. When scarcity is increased you run the risk of actually encouraging people to cheat, cut corners, or be disingenuous in order for them to get things they need, like funding.

I ran across legislation on Rep. Ralph Hall’s (R-Texas) web site which he appeared very prideful of, yet it was completely stupid. On the one hand, he doubts climate change because of the lack of good science and argues his doubt of climate change was supported by what has become known as “Climategate.” So, how does one go about getting “good science?” Well, one way is to make sure you have different parties working on the same or similar problems. Doing so builds a knowledge base, a resume of work and expertise. However, on his own site, he argues for offering “amendments to minimize duplicative research.” [link]

How he thinks science works is beyond me. Besides, all his proposed amendments to current or proposed legislation regarding science and the funding of science initiatives is completely bonkers. Republicans are notorious for harping on how Democrats are so fond of bureaucracy they seem to be ignorant of their own desire for their own flavor of bureaucracy.

The fallacy behind the comments of these individuals and those like them is that they use one data point to either prove their case, or disprove someone else’s. Dana Rohrabacher, on his own web site, states

“I do not believe that CO2 is a cause of global warming.” [link]

This should come as no surprise as Rep. Rohrabacher was a former speechwriter in the Reagan White House, and has been tied to one of President Reagan’s gafs, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”

Rohrabacher told POLITICO in an interview [link]:

“needs to be used as a bully pulpit because many of the issues brought up by the Democrats is based on phony science,” Rohrabacher told POLITICO. This especially is true of global warming, “which is a total fraud,” he said. “We need to make sure that the Science Committee has a debate which both sides can equally present their sides.”

Rohrabacher once joked that dinosaur gas might be the cause behind global warming.

“We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past,” he said at a February 2007 hearing. “Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?”

To my point; people elected into positions of authority need to have more of an open-mind and need to be more technically literate than these examples of poor leadership.

You can read my post on Why Conservatism Is Doomed To Fail for my thoughts on why. Furthermore, I would argue If Conservatism Wins, We All Lose, whereas if Liberalism Wins, Only Conservatives Lose, But Actually Win, Too.

Which brings me to this article from Technology Spectator [link]. Now, its not the article per se which has my hackles up. No, it’s the backstage of the article which is the problem. Like the problem of climate change, doing something now because later its too late, this article represents why our educational system and our business and intellectual climate need to change.

See, for the last 30 years or so, the United States has been happily moving its manufacturing capacity overseas. People bitch and moan about this without really understanding how they have benefitted from the lower prices. I would guess U.S. citizens have saved over $1 trillion dollars since 1980 simple as a result of the movement of manufacturing abroad.

The problem, though is manifold. How can we technologically secure ourselves with technology made outside our country? Yes, it was designed here. The router, switch, server, desktop and tablet were designed here (maybe) and the company has its international headquarters in the United States, but the actual physical product is made in Vietnam, or Singapore, or Malaysia, or China. How can a company maintain physical security of a physical device not within its own borders. Actually, its hard enough even then.

The governments of many countries invest in private enterprise. One reason is to compensate for the the inequity in labor costs, particularly if the technology is needed in-country. In the United States, if someone mentions government investment in private enterprise, they are labeled as a “Socialist,” a “European Democrat,” or a “Communist.”

China is already the world leader in solar cell technology and wind turbine technology. Why? Because the government in Beijing invested $1 billion dollars to make themselves the world leader. Now, they sell the technology around the world. When governments invest that kind of money into a nascent capitalist market, considerable headway is made.

China is also now a world’s leader in Green Technology because of their heavy investment in solar energy, wind turbines, and high-speed rail.

That a top Chinese electronics company, Huawei, wants inside the United States is of no surprise. This is the second high-profile technology incidence in which the United States government has had to play an active role. Not long ago, a Chinese maker of wind turbines, Ralls Corp, was banned from fulfilling a contract to build a wind farm in Oregon.

Actually, that was a good choice, to ban the wind farm. The wind farm was beside a sensitive military base which develops and tests unmanned drones. If I were the Chinese, I would have loaded those turbines with all sort of spy devices the blades would barely turn. And, if it were the United States selling turbines to China, you know we would have done the same thing. We do it all the time when we build an embassy for some country, load the place with every sensor known to Humankind.

The rub, though, is this; politicians within our own government refuse to support technology and Education, as if both are forms of Elitism. Politicians are caught in old Cold War mentalities which hold that any government involvement is a form of “Socialism” or “Communism” and is not simply bad but against our way of life.

I am not advocating for Socialism.

I am advocating for sound, rational, and realistic approaches to commerce, industry, manufacturing, and education.

Why is a U.S. company not building a wind farm in Oregon? Or, Texas? Or, Missouri? Why is our best option a Chinese company?

Why are we worried about a Chinese technology company selling technology inside the United States? My own D-Link wireless router was assembled in China. I would wager most of Cisco’s gear, Belkins, and LinkSys gear is also all either manufactured or assembled in China.

Why are we not producing some of these devices inside the United States if we are so worried about a potential Chinese espionage threat?

Our own governance philosophy is at the root of the problem. Politicians do not want to support or invest in domestic business for fear of being labeled as a “Socialist.” Politicians, particularly Republicans, advocate for letting the Free Market decide. So, the Free Market decides the best place to build and assemble is China, and then politicians, again mostly Republicans, cry foul.

I would argue Lawyers, and those with Political Science degrees – wow, that’s an oxymoron – make the worst politicians. We don’t need lawyers and people gerrymandering politics around religious bigotry and non-science, like Intelligent Design or Creationism.

Creating, supporting, and nurturing Education is fundamental to national security. The added benefit is that we also have a robust industrial and manufacturing climate where we don’t necessarily need to rely on outside contractors, because we have had the foresight to invest ourselves in those technologies, and invest in ourselves.

Higher Education is a Monolith

Higher Education in the United States is a monolith. I imagine the higher education system in the United States as the Titanic. Before the ship was struck and sank, I imagine there were many interesting conversations, people learning and their knowledge increasing. Even if not overwhelmed by the size and technology represented by the ship, I can see people simply sitting around dinner tables, or at the bar, debating politics, debating science or philosophy.

And then the ship strikes the infamous iceberg. We know the rest of the story.

Designers and engineers, captains and staff, caught in the currents of their own hubris, could not imagine their ship would fail, that their ship could be damaged, so much so the ship would sink. Unimaginable.

In the United States, I see higher education buying into their own hype, their own hubris.

Higher Education grew out of the need to develop thought, specifically engineers and scientists, architects and chemists, biologists and doctors. Higher Education was designed to address the deficiencies in the education background of our citizens, and to meet the needs of businesses and industries within the United States. Higher Education was also promoted as a means to ensure National Security.

In other words, intentions were good.

Structural implementation addressed the demand, though to be fair, implementation was sexist and racist. I say this because entry into the university systems was often not fair to women or minorities. Some universities were exceptions to my generalization, but overall, my comment stands.

Early success of colleges and universities were based on the fact these institutions contained the necessary knowledge. Public libraries while important starting places for learning were simply not the fortress of knowledge represented by colleges and universities. If someone wanted to know something to any great detail, one had no other choice but to attend college. History, language, biology, physics, engineering, most any field required college attendance. Of course, some jobs did not require a college education, such as auto mechanic or roofer, and some still do not require higher education today.

But, my point is, colleges and universities have historically been the reservoirs of knowledge because that is where the knowledge was located.

Today, that is becoming less the case.

The Internet is changing education, delivery, access, and content. Especially in Higher Education, access to the Internet is evolving our access to knowledge in every field. Internet sites such as CodeAcademy, Khan Academy, Open Culture, TeacherCast, and even YouTube are changing the delivery model, content, and technology of learning.

But, many in Higher Education resist change.

Higher Education promotes online education – at their own institutions, yet may not accept online course credit taken at other institutions. Furthermore, many colleges and universities either do not accept degrees from online universities or cast wary glances at those people who earned degrees from online universities, or from online programs offered by brick-and-mortar universities.

Higher Education fails to utilize homegrown talent or talents within their student body. On the one hand, Higher Education says they promote open learning and initiative; on the other hand, Higher Education turns its back upon faculty, staff, and students who have initiative, knowledge, and determination and ignore untapped potential.

The entire system of Higher Education once supported an insidious form of hazing. You would be tested, and tested, and tested in the hopes you would fail. It’s a filtering process, really, hazing. Hazing is still present, to some extent in the higher echelons of learning, at the doctoral level. Advisors who want changes without need simply because of their dislike for another advisor.

Higher Education organized itself into semesters and classes with specific meeting times and faculty became supervisors. In fact, Higher Education mimicked Business and Industry in both word and deed.

Both became monolithic and entrenched, behemoths in their respective sectors. The steel industry and the automobile industry and the textile industry in the United States were large, economically powerful, and firm in the belief of their invulnerability. How has that worked out?

Higher Education has been recalcitrant in evolving and modifying their education models. While the U.S. automobile industry seems to be finally getting a clue, at least Ford, Higher Education in the United States is not moving quickly enough to address challenges developing in this new Age of Knowledge.

Higher Education needs an deep introspective evaluation.

Are semesters really necessary? What is more important, meeting at a specific time each week? Or, is the conversation, content, and exposure to questioning the real need? Isn’t the process of learning and acquiring new tools really the goal?

What if education were more like a series of workshops, each a couple weeks long?

What if a student could really take a course at their own pace?

What if learning included all forms of media, video, games, lecture, reading, discussion boards, with or without a formal meeting time?

Shouldn’t we be thinking about destroying the box?

If you – and by “you” I mean if you are an instructor – how would you want someone to learn what you know? How would you really coach your material outside the confines of the rules and policies of your institution? How would, or how should, your students be exposed to the material they need to be knowledgeable about? How would you encourage your students to engage in thinking about the subject?

I read the Chronicle of Higher Education, Campus Technology, and a few other media sources. I am encouraged to some extent that some universities are taking baby-steps in the correct direction. But, having some experience with people at other universities, I find the same stories being shared.

I find showcase stories of “revolutionary” new ideas are simply that, a showcase example of someone who got permission to try something new. These pedagogical ideas, like using iPhone clicker apps in a classroom, make people think Higher Education is progressive, I tend to think otherwise. These “revolutionary ideas” are not being pursued aggressively enough, in my opinion. I would say, why is this a great idea? This is what is supposed to be going on! Using technology in the classroom should be mandatory, not an accolade.

Finally, something I have found very troubling.

Many colleges and universities do not have a Technology Implementation Plan. Colleges and universities often have long-range plans for capital growth, new buildings and such. They have plans for tracking graduates for fund-raising and asking for donations. They have plans for recruiting students.

They have no plans for addressing technological change or implementation of technology. Colleges and universities for the most part affect a form of Ad Hoc technology policies: “do what it takes to make it work,” or “we will cross that bridge when we get there.”

Education in the United States is not simply a matter of improving the livelihood of U.S. citizens and hoping they earn more money and pay their taxes.

Education is a matter of National Security. We need smart people supporting other smart people who create smart companies training smart people. And, its not simply about economic security, but in overall geopolitical security. People who can speak other languages, Russian, Korean, Chinese, and Arabic and interface with people from cultures representing these languages.

Imagine standing in a room or people and you are the only English-speaker. At some point, you’re going to become paranoid all of these people are talking about you. You’ll have to find someone who can translate if you want to say something. How can you be sure your conversation is being communicated correctly? How can you be sure they really aren’t talking about you?

Higher Education does not need to be the intellectual equivalent of the Titanic. One concern, though, is the people hired to run Higher Education are BA/BS, perhaps fresh out school with little experience and little interest in interacting with faculty other than to make sure the classrooms contain warm bodies.

Higher Education has the intellectual knowledge and creativity bank on-site not only to prevent collision and calamity but to devise solutions with which to avoid near-term concerns and chart for long-term success.

Earthquakes and the Richter Scale

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.

Returning to the Gold Standard is a Return to Lunacy

Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul, have many quotes and attributions stating they favor returning to the stable economic days when the United States backed all of its currency with either gold or silver.

I think before anyone jumps on this bandwagon to CrazyTown, we need to really examine the Gold Standard.

Gold and silver are like many things, they are commodities. Commodities have value because we, people, specifically brokers, assign those things "value." For example, we could use sand for currency, but that would be a bad idea. Sand is pretty much ubiquitous. For sand to have any value, sand would have to be protected, isolated, and sequestered in order to control the scarcity of sand. If everyone had sand, then sand would have very little value. If we control the amount of sand, then we control the value. We control the scarcity.

In 1805, the United States had considerable debt from fighting with the British. Gold and silver were in high demand since the U.S. didn't have the gold or silver to pay debts. People hoarded gold and silver as they saw the value go up. I'm sure some people even speculated in gold and silver, thinking that as long as the U.S. had a debt, the value of gold and silver would continue to climb.

Thomas Jefferson, in order to inflate the value of silver, told the government presses to stop minting silver coins. Scarcity drove the value of silver higher, and the market was manipulated by controlling the government minting of coins.

In 1857, more "manipulation" occurred as the U.S. struggled to find gold to buy more silver. Silver had become the preferred currency among countries for doing business. The hunt for gold created the Gold Rush and people headed West to discover sources of gold that could be sold to the government. The government would then use the gold to buy silver. The silver would then be used as currency by our country to pay debts to other countries.

Again, people would hoard gold and silver, as the demand for each metal would rise and fall, depending on what the United States needed to pay its debts.

World War I would come along and force countries to examine how to pay for war needs. European countries were boxed in, not having enough gold or silver to use in order to buy weapons. Some countries had already abandoned the Gold Standard. Others countries, to pay for World War I, went off the Gold Standard in order to run up some debt to pay for war supplies.

And therein lies the rub. Countries needed financial flexibility in order to pay for stuff they could not afford without incurring some debt. Having to constantly maintain a physical store of gold/silver to pay for stuff was very limiting.

Around the turn of the 20th century, most countries either had a Central Bank or were thinking about developing a Central Bank. A Central Bank would establish the value of paper currency, and control the amount of paper in circulation, thereby controlling the value of currency.

Essentially, a transference of value has taken place. Gold has no more value than that which we give it. It's really an arbitrary and artificial value. So the same for paper money. But, paper money is much more easier to come up with than gold or silver. More on that in a minute.

Value is Faith.

People around the world trust the value of the U.S. Dollar. And the value of the English Pound. And the value of the Chinese Renminbi. And the European Euro. They trust these currencies because people have faith that these currencies will be traded and accepted.

Now, more things about the Gold Standard to think about.

In order for Rand Paul's Gold Standard to work, he has to be able to control the supply of Gold. Again, supply is tied to value, and value is tied scarcity. If gold is commonly available, then gold cannot be worth very much, i.e. gold is not scarce.

When the U.S. was on the Gold Standard, personal gold was against the law. The average U.S. citizen could not own more than 4 ounces of gold. We can't have everyone owning gold, if gold is the Standard. In order to control the amount of gold in circulation, Rand would (a) have make the ownership of gold illegal, (b) and collect the amount of gold already in circulation. People must not remember that only after 1972, when Nixon finished off the Gold Standard, was the ownership of gold really made legal.

Gold markets can be manipulated just like any other market. Suppose China decides to flood the market with gold to undermine the value of U.S. gold value. Or Russia. Simply moving the U.S. to a Gold Standard does not make the U.S. financials immune to manipulation.

All countries currently use a Central Bank or Banks for moving currencies around. Germany, France, England, Italy, all have Central Banks. These banks keep money markets stable. While they may not seem stable now, markets could be much worse. All countries Central Banks know how to deal with financial markets, how to conduct country-to-country business. That is our global standard. Moving backwards to a Gold Standard would mean that all countries would have to figure out how to work with our finances. Not as easy as it sounds.

Furthermore, the U.S. is the world's most powerful economy. It is our currency against which oil is priced. If someone really wanted to upset global financial markets and create worldwide chaos, let him destabilize the current U.S. financial markets by changing all the rules of finance.

Gold and silver are also valuable commodities in the technology sector. Consider your smartphone, your laptop, your LCD monitor, every bit of technology you can think off. These devices contain precious metals, gold and silver, among them. How will changing the economy of gold and silver affect the cost of production of the most ubiquitous devices in human history?

In summary:

1. Ask Rand what he thinks about all other countries still using Central Banks. Will they have to return to the Gold Standard, too?
2. Ask Rand how he plans on controlling the supply of gold, and maybe silver. Will he make personal gold ownership illegal?
3. Ask Rand how he feels about manipulating the price of gold, and how that might affect the cost of materials in the Technology Sector.
4. Ask Rand how the Gold Standard is supposed to make financials more stable when historically the price of gold has undergone several manipulations.

Why Conservatives Are Doomed To Fail

I am often characterized as being naive. Sometimes, "too straight" or "too conservative" are also added to labels applied to me during conversations. My appearance, the way I dress, walk, conduct myself, comes off as conservative. At least, historically I have appeared as conservative might. A few years ago, I decided my appearance should more accurately reflect the "character" of the person inside.

I shaved my head, grew a goatee, and got some ink. At some point, I'll probably get some piercings. I have more ink planned. The reason for my changes was to bring my inside and outside into congruence.

Congruence is one of my favorite words; I work "congruence" into conversations as often as I can. "Congruence" means "agreement" or "harmony." People often say and do things which are not congruent. Their words and deeds do not agree.

Being an educator, I find incongruities in my life and I work to resolve those. Students and their lives are rife with incongruities. Recently, I received an email from a student who had trouble taking an online exam. The student elected to take the exam late in the evening, near the maintenance window. After 30 minutes, the student was closed out of the exam. The email stated, "Can I get back in to finish my exam? I want to do the best I can."

Not paying attention to the test environment is not making the best effort, not creating a successful environment for learning or anything else.

In large part, being ignorant of creating and building a successful environment is why I cannot be nor will ever support Republican Party dogma nor any Conservative effort or platform.

I am a Pragmatist. Determine the problem, consider a solution, a solution which has a good chance of working, with the least negative downside, and which also is the most sustainable and reasonable or logical. To my way of thinking, new ways, new methods, new technology, receiving input from different perspectives, personal sacrifice, and delayed gratification are all potential influences into decision-making.

Furthermore, the immediate goal is not necessarily the best goal nor should be the focus. From an economic perspective, the question becomes, "what are the downstream costs and benefits?" The implementation of a policy or idea tomorrow may seem like a really good idea, and have an immediate payoff and be immediately gratifying. The problem with such short-sighted thinking involves the future cost of an action which seemed like a good idea at the time and a decade later we have yet to even figure out how to pay for our decision.

"what are the downstream costs and benefits?"

Now, you can read between the lines and say, "oh, he is talking about Afghanistan." No, not necessarily. Individually, we all make choices which seem incidental at the time, we use credit cards, we receive financial aid, we buy a car and a boat. We have great expectations about our degree we graduated with. But, as a person with a Master's Degree in European History, what the hell am I going to do with it? What was I thinking? You weren't.

In the United States, we have encouraged people to stick their heads' in their butts, and said,

"Honey, if you're happy with your head in your butt, then I'm happy for you. Here, have a cookie. Oh, wait. You're head is in your butt. You won't be able to eat your cookie."

The Grand Old Party (GOP) and Conservatives have no interest in changing anything and would be more than happy if all U.S. citizens would put their heads firmly into their butts. By definition, the GOP and Conservatives believe this. A Conservative is one

"disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." (Dictionary.com)

To be Conservative then means to actively be engaged in the promotion of ignorance. Whether heads are in butts or buried in the sand the results are the same: the world changes while we do not change, adapt, modify, or evolve our behavior.

To be Conservative means to fear change, fear newness, fear difference, to be suspicious of different skin colors, of different languages, of different religions - nor no religion, to fear new ideas.

To be Conservative means to actively oppose change, to actively oppose even the notion of challenging old methods, techniques, and ideas.

Today, Conservatives are not simply advocates of the Status Quo, but the advocates of the Status Quo of yesterday, of last week, of last year, of the last 50 years.

Today, Conservatives argue against Same-sex marriage, advocate for Christian prayer in public schools, advocate for teaching the Bible in public schools, advocate Intelligent Design as theory (its not, its philosophy), advocate for the removal of the teaching of Evolution as science (it is science), advocate for the removal of foreign languages from public schools, advocate for the removal of arts and music from public schools, and perhaps worst of all, advocate for the abolishment of Department of Education.

Today, Conservatives will argue Democrats want "everyone to be the same." To be clear, I am not arguing for Democrats. The Conservative Argument is a logical fallacy. Democrats do not want everyone to be the same; they want everyone to have the same opportunity regardless of race, sex, gender, religion or creed. In fact, I contend Democrats want everyone to be different and want to encourage difference and acceptance of difference.

Conservatives are not congruent.

Conservatives refused to acknowledge Islam as a religion. They refuse to acknowledge the issues of inner city Blacks, Hispanics, and other people of color. They refuse to acknowledge China and the government in Beijing is a partner with Chinese, Korean, and Japanese companies and has already focused on Green Technology and is now the world leader in solar panel technology and wind turbine technology. They refuse to acknowledge the importance of a unified approach to a national educational system to address the needs of today and the future of the United States. They refuse to acknowledge undisciplined finances are detrimental to our national educational system. They refuse to acknowledge education and health care are fundamental rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Conservatives see all change as a threat and something to be stopped. Wikileaks has proven this. All one must do to verify this is to examine SOPA and PIPA and the recent "Citizens United" decision.

Conservatives do not want people thinking for themselves and they certainly do not want to encourage free-thinkers to organize themselves via social media. While Conservatives might castigate Democrats for providing "welfare" to groups of people, and often rightly so, Conservatives want to control individual behavior, your bedroom behavior, your religious behavior, and what you have access to on the Internet.

Conservatives are working towards building a country of well-defended ignoramuses.

Conservatives won't spend money on Education but will be more than happy to spend more money on Defense, despite the fact the United States spends more money on defense than all other countries combined. And, while we will be able to shoot anyone, anywhere, anytime - because we will have smart Asians and a few U.S. citizens building military hardware for us; and, we will have some wealthy people who will have used family money to be able to attend Brown or Columbia and then segue their financial talents into Wall St, whereupon they will yet earn more money by taking advantage of the median U.S. citizen who have become dumbed-down by Conservative fears and ossified notions that decreased military spending translates into a Chinese takeover within a year.

Conservative ideologues and their bankrupt hypotheses not only hold back U.S. entrepreneurial energies but are fundamentally damaging to the social fabric of the United States. From the Birthers to politicians who refused to acknowledge Pres. Obama's presidency to the local Conservative who refuse to acknowledge Islam, Mormonism, Sikhism, or Atheism, the presence of these ideas undeniable contribute to the societal schisms in current U.S. life.

Conservatives are responsible for the lion's portion of the blame. The intolerance towards GLBT. The intolerance towards non-Christian faiths. The intolerance towards people of color. The intolerance towards education. The intolerance toward environmental protection and food safety.

I really think people ought to question why they believe the what they believe. Is it simply dogma, handed down from parents, or religious leaders? Is it simply a problem of thinking, in general? The historical inertia of false ideologies is too great to divert? Fear of being ostracized for being different?

If there is one thing I cannot tolerate, its intolerance.

And, I will never be a Conservative.

I hate the label, Liberal. But, over the last 3 years or so, of watching Conservatives denigrate in all things I find value, "Liberal" has become synonymous with "being educated."

By definition, Conservatives ride their horse into the future based on what they see behind them, and too afraid to turn around to see the path ahead.

I want to ride my horse into the future and plan for what I see ahead.

PAX