One for my baby (and one more for the road) -- Frank Sinatra

Sex and Money

This is actually a remarkable news article because it does not confuse correlation and causation. It notes the association between sexual activity frequency and income, and then speculates about "third variable" factors that might be contributing to the association.

 

I should warn against dismissing studies that are "just" correlational. The correlation between Conscientiousness scores and job performance enables employers to select significantly superior employees. The correlation between smoking and lung cancer is the foundation of the FDA warning labels. There's a correlation between surgeons' blood alcohol levels and the risk of complications during a procedure. I wouldn't let some drunk guy operate on me just because "correlation doesn't prove causation."

 

On a side note, it's kind of sad that so many economists find their own field so boring that they busy themselves conducting psychological research.

 

MarketWatch

Employees that have sex more than four times a week receive 5% higher wages, according to an academic paper by Nick Drydakis, a senior lecturer in economics at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England. Conversely, those who don’t have any sexual activity earn 3% less in wages than those who are sexually active, the study — published by the Institute for the Study of Labor in Bonn, Germany — concluded. Similarly, a Brazilian study published in 2009 found a positive correlation between sexual frequency and wages for Brazilian employees. This may be little more than a correlation, but based on these findings, Drydakis says, “it seems that sexual activity may be of interest to economists.”

Why the bigger paychecks? Sexually active people may exhibit more attributes that are prized in the workplace, experts say. “Both sexual activity and higher wages convey a feeling of higher self-esteem and self-confidence, which attracts more sexual partners and more work opportunities,” says Carole Lieberman, a psychiatrist in Beverly Hills. “Put succinctly: Everyone loves a winner.” This also ties in with long-running theories that attractive people earn more money, she says. In fact, so-called beautiful people are likely to earn 3% to 4% more than plainer folk, according to “Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful,” by Daniel Hamermesh, an economics professor at the University of Texas in Austin.

Another possible explanation for the connection: Those who are more sexually active may simply be in better shape emotionally and physically, which could make them more amiable, productive and creative employees. “This actually doesn’t surprise me, if sexual activity is just one more indicator of general well-being,” says Tina Lowrey, professor of marketing at Hautes Études Commerciales de Paris, a business college in France. Drydakis agrees, adding that increased sexual activity could be a key indicator of good health. “Medical and psychological literature suggest that sexual activity is associated with good health, endurance, mental well-being, mental capacities and dietary habits,” he says.

 One caveat, however: The positive correlation between sex and higher wages could also work both ways. That is, higher wages may encourage some to adopt more sexually active lives, Drydakis says. “They may increase the value and attractiveness of a person on the dating market.” Some psychotherapists say there’s a connection. “The more success the individual experiences, the higher his libido rises,” says Fran Walfish, a therapist in Beverly Hills. And, she says, less money could also mean less sex. “I am currently treating two men whose incomes have dramatically decreased because of the poor economy,” she says. “Both men have reported a significant decrease in their sexual desire and sexual activity.”

For more on why libido might drop after losing a job or being passed over for promotion, check out this paper on the Social Competition Theory of Depression (Price et al., 1994).

 

Antipsychotics in nursing homes

 

Wall Street Journal

 

The U.S. government spent almost $8 billion on antipsychotic drugs in 2011 -- and that's just through Medicare. Don't forget about Medicaid and the DoD/VA.

 

One-in-five of elderly nursing home residents are on antipsychotics. This is usually done to quell the agitation associated with dementia. Unfortunately, antipsychotics are not only expensive, they increase the risk of death in the elderly. The WSJ article has a positive spin ("9% decrease in antipsychotic use"), but it is rather depressing if you read it carefully:

 

Nursing-home officials say inadequate staffing prompts some facilities to give sedating drugs. "Unfortunately a lot of nursing homes would rather give someone a pill to pacify them" instead of hiring more workers, said Morris Kaplan, owner of Gwynedd Square Nursing Center in Lansdale, Pa. His home, he said, went from a 13.8% rate in July 2012 to 10% in July 2013.

Officials at AG Rhodes Health & Rehab of Cobb, a 130-bed home in Marietta, Ga., said nurses were taught that with an agitated patient they should rule out the obvious, like whether they were in pain or hungry. The effort needed a "totally different mind set," said Jackie Summerlin, director of clinical services. The home has gone from 30 residents on antipsychotics to nine.

 

 



PTSD and Medal of Honor recipient, Ty Carter

 Stars and Stripes:

On Oct. 3, 2009, more than 300 Taliban fighters descended on Combat Outpost Keating, a soon-to-be-abandoned site near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in a well-coordinated ambush. Eight U.S. soldiers would be killed in the daylong battle, and 22 wounded.

When the fighting began — a hail of bullets from above, almost immediately overwhelming the 54-man force inside the COP — then-Spc. Carter was asleep. He rushed into battle wearing a tan T-shirt and PT shorts but did manage to grab his body armor.

 ...

He watched two friends die in the early assault and two more die trying to support his position. Another, Spc. Stephan Mace, was gravely wounded by a rocket-propelled grenade and left stranded in the middle of the kill zone.

Carter’s commanding sergeant forbade him from attempting rescue after the explosion, saying it was a suicide mission. Over the next agonizing hours, Carter watched Mace slowly dying just out of reach.

“A good man was lying there wounded, begging for my help,” he said, swallowing hard as he fought back tears. “But [Sgt. Brad] Larson knew that if I went out there, I’d be dead too. For that, I owe him my life.”

...

Still, Carter was focused on Mace. As the firefight began to shift in their favor — thanks to the efforts of Romesha across the base and aerial support — Carter pressed Larson again to let him try to rescue Mace.

Larson relented.

Carter ran onto exposed ground to pull the almost lifeless Mace to safety. He had to make two trips — out to stabilize the fallen soldier, back to coordinate cover fire with Larson, out again to drag Mace across the kill zone back to relative safety.

 ...

Carter didn’t attend Romesha’s Medal of Honor ceremony, saying the 4-year-old battle still felt too raw for him. He talks about the nine losses his troop suffered in that battle — fellow soldier Ed Faulker Jr. battled PTSD and took his own life a year after the attack.

He has been open about his own struggles with PTSD, and said he hopes to use the new honor as a forum to talk about the stress of war and the stigma of seeking mental help. He deployed again to Afghanistan last year and has been in counseling to help him handle the battlefield horrors he can never unsee.

Stars and Stripes:

Carter was singled out for the award for his efforts to save Spc. Stephan Mace, who was mortally wounded and stranded in the kill zone before Carter selflessly sprinted to his position. 

“I lost some of my hearing in that fight,” Carter said, “but I’ll hear the voice of Mace, and his pleas for help, for the rest of my life.”

 

The president also noted that Carter’s courage extended past the battlefield. In recent months, he’s become a self-made spokesman for troops suffering with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, openly speaking about his own struggles after returning from the fight.

Obama called him an inspiration for the military in its struggle to end the stigma of seeking mental health treatment.

“Look at this soldier,” he said. “Look at this warrior. He’s as tough as they come, and if he can find the courage and the strength to not only seek help but also to speak out about it, to take care of himself and to stay strong, then so can you.”

Carter said he is “eager” to represent the troops fighting the invisible wounds of war. He addressed “the American people” at the end of his press remarks, asking for more understanding and empathy of post-war mental health issues.

“Know that a soldier suffering from post-traumatic stress is one of the most passionate, dedicated men or women you’ll ever meet,” he said. “Know that they are not damaged. They are simply burdened with living what others did not.”

Maybe combat veterans with PTSD aren't "damaged," but they sure can be destroyed by their experiences. And if they're not "damaged," they sure can be disabled, which is why the U.S. government paid out $4 billion dollars in disability payments to veterans with PTSD in 2012. MoH
recipient Sgt. Dakota Meyer (USMC) tried to kill himself about a year after his combat deployment, but before he received the MoH. I wonder if the DoD would have awarded it to him posthumously?

It's amazing to me how many people, especially military personnel (not combat veterans, I might add), think that PTSD is a consequence of moral weakness or cowardice (and that they, of course, are therefore somehow immune to the psychological injuries associated with combat). Well, one in five Americans think that the sun revolves around the Earth, so I guess there's no helping some folks.

Here's a nicely done Public Service campaign by Medal of Honor recipients who encourage recent veterans to get help for PTSD and "don't let the enemy defeat you at home."


By the way, one of the eight MoH recipients from the Afghan War was a college graduate, and he majored in psychology.

First day of classes...

...and I almost forgot to post to this blog.

Best part is when he calls out for the "women over 40" in the audience to sing the chorus. And they do.

Not actually a "random" attack

The murder of an 88 year old veteran of the battle of Okinawa by two teenaged thugs in Spokane, WA last week is rightfully receiving national news coverage. But all the reports I have seen so far (e.g., this one) are describing the attack as "random."




Predators don't choose targets "randomly." If you chose randomly, you might end up assaulting someone who could fight back, or someone who doesn't have anything worth stealing. Predators look for prey, not for a fight.

By the way, everyone talks about how non-human predators target the old, the weak, and the sick, but here's a report on an interesting study that actually present data that support that contention. Most everyone leaves out that by "weak," we mean the youngest animals. So predators don't just cull the herd by eating those who are already going to die soon, they also thin the ranks by limiting the number of offspring on hand. Those predators are baby killers.

The Parable of the Old Man and the Young (Wilfred Owen)

Parable of the Old Man and the Young So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went, And took the fire with him, and a knife. And as they sojourned both of them together, Isaac the first-born spake and said, My Father, Behold the preparations, fire and iron, But where the lamb for this burnt-offering? Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps, and builded parapets and trenches there, And stretchèd forth the knife to slay his son. When lo! an angel called him out of heaven, Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, Neither do anything to him. Behold, A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns; Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him. But the old man would not so, but slew his son, And half the seed of Europe, one by one. Wilfred Owen

Lake Street Dive -- I Want You Back

Finally, a band (or at least a performance) that lives up to the buzz:

Between the ages of 5 and 7 years, the vocalist (Rachael Price) listened to nothing but Ella Fitzgerald. It tells.

The End Product

This is the last of a 5 day reverie on an ideal college curriculum.

So, aside from having a first class education in basic science as well as an in-depth acquaintance with the best works of the Western tradition, how else would a graduate of such a program differ from typical college graduates? From yesterday's post, it should be plain that this would not be a person to trifle with, a person inured to hardship and possessing extremely strong self-discipline. They can read Ancient Greek and French, paint a portrait, and ride a horse. They have extraordinary mental and physical endurance. They have mastered both elements of the liberal arts and sciences.

That phrase usually, and wrongly, gets shortened to the liberal arts. But what "liberal arts" (and sciences) actually refers to is the education appropriate for a liber (Latin: "free man"). The idea is that free citizens should be deeply educated in both the arts and the sciences. The common view that the only subjects worth funding are from the so-called STEM disciplines, or that STEM disciplines are somehow superior to non-STEM disciplines is a relatively recent misapprehension. The STEM v. non-STEM dichotomy isn't actually about "arts" versus "sciences" (this should be apparent since only the STEM "S" represents science; the rest are Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). It is rather about Education versus Training. Completing an engineering program will not make you an educated person; it will make you a trained engineer.

The book An Education for our Time by former VMI Superintendent Josiah Bunting is a far, far better exercise in imaging a new type of college than I have done these past few days. I strongly recommend it.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

What about athletics?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, no team sports, no sports "scholarships," and no NCAA-type intercollegiate competitions. The NCAA is a corrupting influence in American higher education (for examples, see here, here, and definitely here). And, team sports such as football and baseball mostly involve standing around and doing nothing, as the Wall Street Journal recently demonstrated (see "NFL Games have 11 minutes of action").

 

On a daily basis, freshmen should run (up to 10 miles), swim (up to 1 mile), and/or hike (up to 25 miles). They should learn to throw the javelin, shotput, and discus. They should learn to box and wrestle. They should learn archery.

 

Sophomores will learn horsemanship and fencing. They will continue their martial arts training, adding perhaps judo and kendo.

 

Juniors will learn ju-jitsu, karate, and other fighting arts, as well as be trained in pistol and rifle shooting. Swimming, running, and hiking will continue throughout all four years. Intracollegiate competition in Modern Pentathlon will begin.

 

 

Seniors will compete in Modern Penathlon, endurance running, open water swimming, and multi-day wilderness trekking.

 

Somewhere along the line, students should learn to sail and to handle small boats, to row, and to dance. They should also learn some gymastics.

 

 

 

 



No Latin?

 

 

As I indulge in my fantasy college curriculum, I suppose something should be said about admissions, or rather, who would be best prepared to benefit from such a curriculum. Since two years of Ancient Greek is required, it would probably be prudent for incoming students to have had at least a couple of years of high school Latin. And that calculus requirement suggests that they had better crack at least a 650 on the SAT-Math. But other than that, it is probably best to keep admissions as simple as possible.

 

As a psychometrician, I would be perfectly comfortable with using a heavily g-loaded standardized admissions test, particularly the Miller Analogies Test. (Click here for some free practice tests.) Admission letters go to the highest scorers, in descending order, until the incoming class is filled. If that results in a freshman class that is 80% Asian females, so be it.

 

 

 

WIth regard to the high school Latin, this observation by classicist Victor David Hanson seems fitting:

Four years of high-school Latin would dramatically arrest the decline in American education. In particular, such instruction would do more for minority youths than all the ‘role model’ diversity sermons on Harriet Tubman, Malcolm X, Montezuma, and Caesar Chavez put together. Nothing so enriches the vocabulary, so instructs about English grammar and syntax, so creates a discipline of the mind, an elegance of expression, and serves as a gateway to the thinking and values of Western civilization as mastery of a page of Virgil or Livy (except perhaps Sophocles’s Antigone in Greek or Thucydides’ dialogue at Melos). After some 20 years of teaching mostly minority youth Greek, Latin, and ancient history and literature in translation (1984-2004), I came to the unfortunate conclusion that ethnic studies, women studies—indeed, anything “studies”— were perhaps the fruits of some evil plot dreamed up by illiberal white separatists to ensure that poor minority students in the public schools and universities were offered only a third-rate education.

It is an interesting idea that the reform of the nation's high schools could be furthered by U.S. colleges tightening up their admissions requirements (e.g., requiring four years of Latin and three years of lab science). More about that some other time.

Freshman Year

A continuation of yesterday's post -- appropriate, I think, as we start another academic year.

	Year 1		Year 2
	1A	1B	2A	2B
Art	Music	Drawing I	Western Art I	Western Art II
Science	Biology I	Biology II	Chemistry I	Chemistry II
Seminar	Great Books I	Great Books II	Great Books III	Great Books IV
Math/Econ	Mathematical Investigations I	Mathematical Investigations II	Calculus I	Calculus II
Language	Ancient Greek I	Ancient Greek II	Ancient Greek III	Ancient Greek IV

The biology (with lab) is self-explanatory.

The math courses would be self-paced, like B.F. Skinner's mastery learning approach, and include programming, and relational databases, as well as prepping students for calculus. They would be interesting, too, I hope, unlike pretty much every math course I have ever taken. I have had two great math teachers: one was a guy who came into our 4th grade class about once a month (Mr. Barrett) and drilled us on the multiplication table; the other was a professor from the U.S. Naval Academy who reviewed in one hour all the math I needed to know to pass the Foreign Service Officer exam.

The fall seminar would cover, at a minimum, Homer, Plato, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Herodotus, and Thucydides. The spring seminar would add Aristotle, Euripedes, and Sophocles. See here to see how all these works can be read in a year.

Learning to read ancient Greek will deepen one's appreciation for the above works. It will also further distinguish a true college student from the hoi polloi.

The music course is also intended to differentiate the college student from the masses of high schoolers. In addition to music theory, there would be a component that requires identifying hundreds of pieces of classical music. This could be mastered only by spending hours each week listening to these pieces (time that therefore could not be spent listening to pop music). Attending to the soul as well as to the intellect.

Learning to draw during the spring semester would be a great experience. By the time they are 18 years old, most people are convinced that they "can't draw." In a good drawing class, students are shocked at how much they improve in a short time, and they pick up a useful, pleasurable lifelong skill, as well as enhance their observational skills.

A Modest Proposal for a College Curriculum

There has been a lot of talk over the past few years about the "bubble" in college tuition and whether college is "worth it." Most disturbing are reports that suggest that most college students don't work terribly hard and consequently don't learn much during their college years, while accumulating vast amounts of debt. For example of this talk, see here, here, and here.

I agree that it is a dubious proposition that anything with fewer than 3 bedrooms and a yard is worth $250,000, which is what tuition, room, and board can run you at a 4-year private college. It is pretty crazy that a bank will loan you that much money as long as you tell them you want to use it to hang around a pretty campus for four years, make friends, use Facebook while sitting in a lecture hall with 300 other "students," get drunk 3 to 5 nights a week, and avoid reading or writing anything longer than this blogpost. Try asking a bank for a quarter million dollars so you can buy a 55' sailboat. At least at the end of four years you'll still have a sailboat, instead of just something to put down in Education section of your Starbucks application.

A "return to rigor" in the college experience is certainly in order. College graduates should differ from non-graduates in more ways than just their projected lifetime earnings, SAT scores, and high school GPAs. They should actually know things that non-grads do not, and they should behave in ways that non-grads do not. In my view, a college graduate should be readily discernible from the non-grad in his appearance, presentation, manner of speech, work habits, leisure activities, physical fitness, morals, and social relations. Graduates should be different from when they matriculated four years earlier. College itself should not be a repetition of high school, nor should it be a five-year party. College, while preparing one for life, should not focus primarily on preparing one for a specific career. (This is not to say that I am opposed to undergraduate preprofessional training in engineering, nursing, or computer science -- but these programs train; they do not educate.)

The program I am proposing will not suit everyone, nor is it intended to do so. But I imagine that were an existing college to reconfigure itself along the lines that I propose, it would be well-positioned to survive the anticipated higher education market meltdown. In a crisis, people seek out quality.

The obvious model for this program is St. John's College (Annapolis/Santa Fe), which is where I would study, if I had it all to do over again. However, you could pursue this course of study, or something very close to it, at many colleges, within their existing curricula, should you choose to do so. The program would be superb preparation for almost any career (except the technical careers mentioned above) and, if you took organic chemistry during the summer between your junior and senior years, fulfills all the traditional pre-requisities for medical school.

	Year 1		Year 2
	1A	1B	2A	2B
Art	Music	Drawing I	Western Art I	Western Art II
Science	Biology I	Biology II	Chemistry I	Chemistry II
Seminar	Great Books I	Great Books II	Great Books III	Great Books IV
Math/Econ	Mathematical Investigations I	Mathematical Investigations II	Calculus I	Calculus II
Language	Ancient Greek I	Ancient Greek II	Ancient Greek III	Ancient Greek IV

	Year 3		Year 4
	3A	3B	4A	4B
Art	Speech I	Speech II	Drawing II	Painting
Science	Physics I	Physics II	Evolution	Genetics
Seminar	Great Books V	Great Books VI	Great Books VII	Great Books VIII
Math/Econ	Statistics I	Statistics II	Economics I	Economics II
Language	French I	French II	French III	French IV

If the Art courses are 2 credit hours, the Science courses are 4 credit hours, the Seminars are 6 credit hours, and the Math/Econ and Language courses are 3 credit hours, that's 18 credit hours a semester (18 x 8 semesters = 144 hrs to graduate).

There are no "majors." However, you pick up 32 hours of science courses; add the 6 credits of calculus (and the summer coursework in organic chem) and that constitutes a solid pre-med major. The seminars (6 x 8 semesters = 48 credit hours) are an admixture of literature, philosophy, and history. Perhaps students could choose a focus for a major writing project during their final year and that would determine whether their degree will be in literature, philosophy, or history. Essentially, everyone graduates with a double-major in the Arts and in the Sciences.

I will elaborate on details of the program in subsequent posts:

Freshman Year

No Latin?

What about athletics?

The end product