Rethinking Markets

I’ve been reading Karen Pryor’s Don’t Shoot the Dog, about positive reinforcement and dog people training. I’m going to try out a new thing for my class this fall, what I am calling the League of Discussion Awesomeness. One of my biggest issues is how to balance discussion and lecture, and more specifically (given the admissions office-selected student body) how to get great discussion out of my students. I am of the strong belief that while different students have different styles, and one of those styles is to listen intently but not participate directly in class. And I simply reject that style. I’m done being the teapot, and my students should be done being the receptacle.

But this means that I run into the problem of some students dominating discussion, with others hanging waaaayy back. And as anyone who has been in the Q&A of any sociology talk on any level, an often-talker is not necessarily a thinking-talker. So how to get lots of high quality discussion across the board. This semester, instead of the normal guesstimating points for participation, I’m going with the League of Discussion Awesomeness. Being in the LoDA guarantees you full marks for participation. And so much more!

Initially, getting into the LoDA for a class means just speaking up in class. But then, a couple weeks in, I’m going to make getting into the LoDA something that requires nomination from your fellow students. When someone makes a ‘LoDA worthy’ comment, students can respond by putting their finger up against their nose. A floor of 3 votes (or something, I’ll calibrate as we go) to start, maybe with the number of votes going up as the semester progresses.

This (hopefully) will have three effects. One, it will create a positive incentive for participation – LoDA gets grades, accolades, maybe even a cash prize or something. Two, it will allow fellow students to have a hand in shaping participation. A big complaint at places like Barnard/Columbia is that everyone thinks they are smart and everyone else talks about trivial, personal, or not-on-point stuff. The voting for high quality discussion – a ‘smart’ comment – allows students to vote for quality over quantity. And three, it will send a signal to the high-quantity, low-quality discussants that their comments are not being received as godly wisdom. Hopefully, this will encourage students to participate more, and participate smarter.

I’m still working out the details, but does this sound like a viable plan? Am I missing something gigantic?

Summertime is when the Galia Melons are in season:

If you haven’t been doing it already, you should be taking this opportunity to eat your favorite melons, stone fruits, or fresh figs, brie & prosciutto. Eat watermelon! Save the apples and oranges for October and December. Live in the hot.

Internet blah blah blah killing newspapers blah blah blah standards of journalism blah blah decline of democracy. Seriously, I read this NYT article on the defeat of the Small-business bill by Senate Republicans via filibuster twice, and I’m still trying to figure it out. Republicans filibustered it because they weren’t allowed to offer as many amendments as they wanted. But what these amendments might be, whether they are a good or bad idea, what alternatives there are, which substantive policies Republicans and Democrats favor or don’t, none of that is in the article. Is it that hard to ask, or for the Senate Minority Leader to advocate directly, what they actually want included or not included in the proposed policy? This article is like eating a hollow french fry, all process no substance.

And if that isn’t bad enough, I made the mistake of going to the Washington Post to see if I could, you know, find out what the substance was. Here is a screen cap of their current political page:

Good lord, what happened to the Washington Post? Tracking Palin’s mama grizzlies, indeed. Virtually nothing on this entire page is substantive. At the very bottom, EJ Donne asks ‘Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?’ Can newspapers stay alive if this is the best they can do?

Things I love today, or at least appreciate today. I’m feeling a little out of place and time, a common feature of my wife’s being out of town. Suddenly I’m working at 1am, up until 3am. So I’m looking for a little groundedness and goodness:

• A good story, well told. You should read Patrick Rothfuss’ The Name of the Wind. And read Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games series. Oh, and the first 20 minutes of Up. Boy, every time I see that I laugh, and cry.
• Anachronistic hobbies. Mine include writing letters (and sometimes writing them on my Hermes Featherweight typewriter!), baking bread, and listening to big band music (and sometimes even dancing a little Lindy Hop). But by all means, cultivate some orchids, do jigsaw puzzles (and if you love, love, love me, buy me a Stave puzzle), paint model airplanes, build a Wimshurst Machine.
• Stevie Wonder’s I Believe (When I Fall in Love).
• That moment when you realize that your friends are doing something specifically because they want to help you. And accepting that help in the spirit in which it is given.
• Unbridled enthusiasm. Find something at which you can direct some non-ironic, genuine passion. With full-on gusto.
• Singing out loud, preferably with a group.
• My wife. Never thought I would be in a long-term relationship, much less married. And I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the experience (see Enthusiasm, unbridled).
• Mondays. I love Mondays, with its whiff of blank page and anticipation. I know, I know, Fridays (Eddie from Ohio’s Blue Jeans makes the case). But I still love me some Mondays.
• Structure. Agency is for psychologists, economists, and suckers. Give me structure any day.

What do you love?