Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowl Wrong?

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowl Wrong?

The first weekend in January 2014 produced two of the less noticed football bowls.

Saturday, Jan. 4, in the BBVA Compass Bowl, Vanderbilt was favored over Houston by a field goal.

Final score: Vanderbilt 41, Houston 24

Sunday, Jan. 5, in the GoDaddy Bowl, Ball State was picked over Arkansas State by two scores.

Final score: Arkansas State 23, Ball State 20

BBVA Compass Bowl

Spread predictions here.

Another one up, one down, on the simple win-loss, so another 50-percent win ratio for the odds makers. Again, the correct pick also underestimated the game. Vanderbilt was not predicted to head for a blowout, undo it, and then win anyway by three scores.

Again, the line was emphatically wrong. So much for odds making. Where does Vegas get these experts?

As of today, the last day of the 2013-2014 bowl season, 34 of 35 games have been played on the NCAA football bowl schedule. For the 34, thirteen picks have been wrong, and more than a dozen picks choosing the winner have given a wrong picture of the game. Are they trying to lure bettors in? Those odds get inserted into almost all coverage of the games, in regular news media.

Another reason for not betting on college sports: every time you do, you contribute to compromise and taint the press further.

B_S

Going forward

On to the next college bowl game; how will the next picks hold up?

Coming up next, tonight is the big one, the BCS Bowl. Ranked #1 Florida State will play ranked #2 Auburn. Auburn comes off a series of miracle wins; Florida State off allegations of sexual assault against its compartmentalizing quarterback.

Florida State is favored by two scores.

Today’s question: Who will get today’s bowl wrong?

 

One more to come.

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowl Wrong?

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowl Wrong?

More picks, more wrong picks. Friday night had the Orange Bowl and the Cotton Bowl. Ohio State was favored over Clemson by a touchdown in the Orange, Missouri over Oklahoma State by a point in Cotton.

Final scores:

  • Orange Bowl: Clemson 40, Ohio State 35
  • Cotton Bowl: Missouri 41, Oklahoma State 31

Spread predictions here.

Landmark

One up, one down, as to win-loss. Admittedly, either of these games could have gone either way. Fewer plays like the back-to-back interceptions near the end of the Cotton Bowl, fewer penalties, better time management. On the other hand, the predictions also failed to come anywhere near the total amount of scoring, and the total scores could have zoomed upward even more with fewer mistakes.

Missouri wins

Again, the line was emphatically wrong. So much for odds making. Let’s hope none of the injuries incurred in the games linger too long.

Orange

As of today, 32 games have been played on the NCAA football bowl schedule. Out of 32, a dozen picks have been completely wrong, and way more than a dozen picks, including some choosing the winner correctly, have given no true picture of the game. Who is hiring these experts?

Going forward

On to the next college bowl games; how will the next picks hold up?

Coming up next are a couple of Ho-Hum Bowls. Let’s hope they offer more play than injury.

Sat. Jan. 4: BBVA Compass Bowl:

Vanderbilt favored over Houston by a field goal

Sun. Jan. 5: GoDaddy Bowl:

Ball State picked over Arkansas State by two scores

Last night wasn’t too kind to schools named ‘State’. At least one will have to win tonight.

Today’s question: Who will get today’s bowls wrong? (That post can wait until Monday.)

 

More to come.

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Yesterday, the odds on the bowl were short and sweet: In the Sugar Bowl, Alabama was favored over Oklahoma by at least two scores.

Final score: Oklahoma 45, Alabama 31.

Spread predictions here.

How the mighty are fallen, and I don’t mean Alabama.

Oklahoma!

The odds makers continue their inadequate performance. Not a lot of games on Jan. 2, but the big game was one of the major bowls. The Sugar Bowl is one of the real bowls–like the Cotton Bowl and the Orange Bowl–and still the established pickers got it wrong. The line was emphatically wrong.

The predictions were wrong even by the broad win-loss rubric. They were even more wrong on the picture of the game itself. Alabama came out scoring at the beginning, and the first minutes looked liked an Ahh, Whatever Bowl, but the initial snapshot had little to do with the rest of the game. No predictor said that Oklahoma would end up with something like 45 points, and anyone who predicted Alabama with 31 would not have projected that as a loss. Regrettably, I was not able to watch much of this game. That made the picture clearer: every other time I tuned back in, it seemed, Alabama’s quarterback was getting sacked again, or Alabama was about to try a third down, or Oklahoma players were clapping one or two of their own on the back, shoulders, or helmet in jubilation . . .

Caught behind

Too bad, in a way. A week of college football had started me wondering why coaches don’t teach their players to C.O.V.E.R-THE-R.E.C.E.I.V.E.R.S instead of always going for the big play on defense. Easy for me to say, of course, and even a non-expert can see that it’s easier to swarm one man, or attempt to, than to scatter around the field in different directions chasing several different moving targets. Still–getting close to a receiver can sometimes result in an interception, and getting the ball is better even than getting the quarterback. The repeated sacks against Alabama may have contributed to undo that little moral of the story.

Side note: ESPN (on Verizon FIOS) continuously captioned the Oklahoma-Alabama game “Rose Bowl 2014,” at least in the Washington, D.C., viewing region. They never corrected the error, all night long, so far as I know.

As of today, 30 games have been played on the NCAA football bowl schedule. Out of 30, eleven picks have been completely wrong. More than a dozen picks, including some choosing the winner correctly, have given no true picture of the game. On days when there were several football bowl games, much of the picking was wrong. On a day with only one bowl, the picking was wrong. Why would anyone bet on these experts like these?

Why would anyone bet on college students playing sports in the first place?

Going forward

On to the next college bowl games; how will the next picks hold up?

One of the last bowls 2013-2014

Today has the Orange Bowl and the Cotton Bowl:

Today’s question: Who will get today’s bowls wrong?

More to come.

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowl Wrong?

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowl Wrong?

As of New Year’s Day, the odds on yesterday’s football bowls were as follows:

Jan. 1, 2014:

 

Wrong

Spread predictions here.

Six games on Jan. 1; four games picked emphatically wrong. Four 180-degree wrong predictions even by the broad win-loss rubric. Georgia was nowhere near beating Nebraska by two scores in the Gator Bowl, and South Carolina beat Wisconsin definitively in the Capital One Bowl. Central Florida came out scoring in the Fiesta Bowl and never stopped. The Rose Bowl was very hard fought from start to finish, but Stanford seldom or never looked like a favorite.

 

Hard won

LSU did not crush Iowa in the Outback Bowl, either. That game was more wobbly than predicted to be, though the outcome was correctly predicted. LSU had to fight all the way down to the fizzle of an end*–when it almost mismanaged the clock in final seconds so as to give the ball back to Iowa on downs. The coach had to intervene and arm-wave away a snap. Sometimes it’s a mistake to get too cute. With more than a minute left to play, any team worth its salt ought to be able to run a play without undue risk of disaster. If you’re ahead in the final minute and a half but can’t handle one snap, just one snap, and a single attempt to gain a few yards–that don’t even have to be gained successfully, for the win–maybe you don’t belong in a bowl in the first place. Perhaps the rules should be changed to prohibit taking a knee with more than 60 seconds left in the game.

Won

The Heart of Dallas Bowl and a couple of others serve as reminders that again, future years may see a need for more new bowl names. Lackluster Bowl?

 

Bowl season

As of today, 29 games have been played on the NCAA football bowl schedule. Out of 29, ten picks have been completely wrong. Ten or so of the winning teams and right picks, the favored, depending on how you count them, were favored too narrowly to be realistic. The prognosticators’ ratio is still ailing.

Going forward

On to the next college bowl games; how will the next picks hold up?

Today is the Sugar Bowl:

Today’s question: Who will get today’s bowl wrong?

 

*I root for Louisiana teams and thought LSU would be more solid. A regrettable typo in the previous post–typing in ‘Outback Bowl’ instead of ‘Capital One Bowl’–has been corrected. It would have been more wizardly if I had done it on purpose. Maybe I was picking up on something registered subliminally. Uncle Sigmund, call your office . . .

Speaking of offices, tacking on those sponsor names is making the bowl names more forgettable, not less. The more syllables, by and large, the more obscure.

More to come.

 

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Lots and lots of hindsight. Not so much foresight. Once again, betting on college sports has got to be a mug’s game, even aside from the general sleaziness and greasiness of putting money on other people’s bone-breaking from the vantage point of the couch, while fork-lifting plaque into the arteries via fat-filled dips washed down with alcohol. Not to sound like a latter-day Carrie Nation, gentlemen. But really. Google ‘Images’ for ‘bad cholesterol’.

ER care

As of yesterday, remember, the odds on yesterday’s football bowls were as follows:

Tuesday, Dec. 31 bowl games:

  • AdvoCare V100 Bowl: Arizona favored by about a touchdown over Boston College. Uh-huh. Final score: Arizona over BC 42-19
  • Sun Bowl: UCLA is picked over Virginia Tech by almost a touchdown: Final score: 42-12 UCLA
  • Liberty Bowl: Mississippi State favored over Rice: Final score: Miss State 44, Rice 7
  • Chick-fil-A Bowl: Texas A&M favored over Duke by at least two scores: Final score: A&M 52, Duke 48

 

Rice season

Spread predictions here.

That’s four games, with for a change four winners picked. However, three of the picks were so ludicrously undervalued that the prediction bears virtually no resemblance to the game. The Arizona-Boston College game was more lopsided than the score indicates. The UCLA-Virginia Tech game was more lopsided than the score indicates. Even the Mississippi State-Rice game was more lopsided than the score, not an easy feat to pull off with a final 44-7. The fourth bowl–Duke and Texas A&M–was undervalued in the other direction. Duke had an excellent chance of winning up to about the last minute and a half of the game. Arguably, Duke–which racked up 38 points in the first half–should have won. A couple of bad play calls and a wrong non-call on pass interference in the last quarter made a crucial difference in a game where mostly the Aggie defense looked helpless. Couldashouldawouldas aside, Duke predominated, especially in the first half, enough that the predictions in no way represented the game that took place. Duke can go home with nothing to be ashamed of.

There may be a need for more new bowl names in future years. Lopsided Bowl? Wild Card Bowl? Chalk-Up-a-Win Bowl? Beef-Up-Your-Stats Bowl? ‘Consolation Bowl’ is already de facto in use. As said, parody falls short in this context.

Not enough bowls

As of today, 23 games have been played on the NCAA football bowl schedule. Out of 23, six picks have been wrong. Of the winning teams and right picks, ten of the favored, depending on how you count them, were favored too narrowly to be realistic. The prognosticators’ ratio is not improving, although the narrow win-loss tally is.

Going forward

So–on to the next college bowl games: How will the next picks hold up? Happy 2014.

Jan. 1, 2014:

Nothing is a sure thing in sports. Given the youth of the players, there are especially no sure things in college sports, and then there are the massive injuries.

Once again, betting on these is unsavory–and foolhardy. Even a non-expert can see that the picks for the Gator, [Capital One], and Rose bowls are houses built on sand.

For the more consensus views, there is a little more supporting evidence. Outback Bowl sponsor Outback Steakhouse has been advertising a promotion: customers coming in tomorrow (Jan. 2) and mentioning the bowl can get a free coconut shrimp appetizer if Iowa wins, or a free blooming onion appetizer if LSU wins. Since the blooming onion is considerably less expensive to make than the coconut shrimp, it’s a safe bet that Outback sees LSU as more likely the victor.

Today’s question: Who will get today’s bowls wrong?

 

More to come.

 

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Again, I am against betting on college sports in the first place. It is unconscionable to put these young people in harm’s way and then to wager money on them.

A more crass perspective is that the odds makers get so much wrong, anyway, that betting on the bowls would be foolish as well as ethically flawed.

 

A holiday for accuracy

As of day before yesterday, it will be remembered, the odds on yesterday’s football bowls were as follows:

Monday, Dec. 30:

  • Middle Tennessee picked over Navy in the Armed Forces Bowl, except when Navy is picked over Middle Tennessee:  Final score: Navy 24, Middle Tennessee 6
  • #10 Oregon favored over Texas in the Alamo Bowl:  Final score: Oregon 30, Texas 7
  • Ole Miss favored, somewhat, over Georgia Tech in the Music City Bowl:  Final score: Mississippi 25, Georgia Tech 17
  • In the Holiday Bowl, #16 Arizona State favored to beat Texas Tech by two touchdowns:  Final score: Texas Tech 37, Arizona State 23

Spread predictions here.

That’s four bowl games. As to win-loss, the sports experts and numbers whizzes guiding movement of dollars in places like Sri Lanka got two wrong. That’s a fifty percent error rate. The predictions were wildly wrong on Texas Tech, almost as wildly wrong on Navy.

Even when the odds makers picked the winner correctly–twice out of four tries–they got the depth of the win wrong once–that would be once out of two tries. Oregon’s score and win were substantially underestimated. For the pickers who correctly chose Navy, Navy’s score and win were also under-predicted.

So as of today, nineteen games have been played on the NCAA football bowl schedule. Out of nineteen, six picks have been wrong. Of the winning teams and right picks, six or seven of the favored, depending on how you count them, were favored too narrowly to be realistic. The prognosticators’ ratio has gotten worse since yesterday morning.

Going forward

So–on to the next college bowl games: How will the next picks hold up?

Today’s bowl games:

As to yesterday’s picks, the tentative hypotheses sketched in yesterday’s post only partly hold up. The most remotely, wildly wrong projection for yesterday’s bowls was that Arizona State would beat Texas Tech. This one was way off in spite of the fact that a lot of people cared about/paid attention to the game (compared to several other bowls), and in spite of the fact that TT (Big 12) and Arizona State (Pac-12) are both members of highly rated conferences. On the other hand, the game between Ole Miss (SEC) and Georgia Tech was competently predicted, bearing out the hypotheses.

Conjecture aside, the Holiday Bowl had downsides and upsides. One plus, among others, was  Reginald Davis, with an inspiring biography. He is also from my late parents’ tiny home town (mispronounced on air), although the only time I have been back to Tenaha in recent years was for my mother’s funeral. (Law enforcement personnel in Tenaha, Texas, were in the news in a much less joyous context recently, to my horror and amazement.)

 

Davis in high school

On the down side, Tre Porter was injured, out with a concussion. I hope Texas Tech does everything it can for his recovery.

 

Porter helped off field after concussion

Meanwhile, the Holiday Bowl is sponsored by online National University, one of the numerous digital diploma mills proliferating in the U.S. Another example of cognitive dissonance in the news media: on one hand, we have a torrent of news stories about tech surveillance by the NSA, CIA, and the military-technological-industrial conference over-all, particularly after the document conveyances by Edward Snowden. On the other hand, we have a torrent of digital universities–and of traditional universities pushing to get more online all the time. No thought or fear of the inevitable loss of privacy in cyberspace is allowed to intrude on the commerce of getting money from students and parents. One by-product of reverencing all that is ‘digital’ is that faculty are ever more reduced in the university big picture. Another is that our students are losing more and more of the social interaction with faculty that they come into college desperately needing. Mammals, including humans, are social creatures. These are larger topics for another time. For now, it is worth pointing out that anyone who knows the word ‘keystroke’ should know that there is no guarantee of privacy or of secure information in getting your education online. The headline focus on Snowden has not yet illuminated this point.

Today’s question: Who will get today’s bowls wrong?

 

More to come.

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Which Odds Makers Will Get today’s College Bowls Wrong?

Thirty-five 2013-2014 college bowls in football, some with bowl names that make parody difficult if not impossible. The sheer number of bowls (35) goes beyond satire. So it seems productive, as well as fair, to take a quick look at one of the least savory aspects of this high-skill, high-speed, high-injury activity, and review the picks and the odds makers.

 

NIU: wrong guess

Where bowls go, the odds makers follow. As of this writing, the picks and favored have been mostly right. But rather narrowly. Fifteen games have been played on the NCAA football bowl schedule so far. Of the fifteen, four picks have been wrong. Of the winning teams and right picks, four of the favored were damned with faint praise–favored, but not by near enough to be realistic.

 

Las Vegas

Saturday, Dec. 21, was the worst day for the pickers. That Saturday gave us the Las Vegas Bowl, the New Mexico Bowl, the Idaho Potato Bowl, and the New Orleans Bowl.

Monday, Dec. 23, more importantly my brother’s birthday, gave us the Beef O’Brady’s Bowl: Ohio versus East Carolina (20-37). At least East Carolina was favored, although it won by more. Picks more right than wrong, arguably.

Christmas Eve Tuesday took us to the Hawaii Bowl, with Boise State versus Oregon State (23-38).

The line on Oregon State was three, and some writers picked Boise State. Oregon State won by fifteen.

Inadequate prognostication. Not by enough.

Pitt and pizza

Thursday, Dec. 26, took us the Poinsettia Bowl and to the Little Caesars Bowl.

Friday, Dec. 27, offered the Military Bowl, the Texas Bowl, and the Fight Hunger Bowl. The customary pronunciation of that last one is ‘fight hunger‘, with the stress on the latter word, meaning to combat the sad ill of people going without food. One sportscaster, doused in testosterone, called it ‘the fight hunger bowl’.

  • Marshall was favored to beat Maryland in the Military Bowl and did, 31-20. An easy call, and they got it right.
  • In the Texas Bowl, in Houston, Minnesota was favored over Syracuse by four or more. At the final, Syracuse won by 21-17. Prediction not very close. One forecaster did have some astute comments, and predicted right.
  • In the Fight Hunger Bowl, regardless how you pronounce it, Washington was rightly favored over BYU, and won 31-16. Another easy call that they got right.

Saturday, Dec. 28, brought the Pinstripe Bowl, the Belk Bowl, the Russell Athletic Bowl, and the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl.

  • Ranked [?] team #25[?] Notre Dame was favored to win over Rutgers in the Pinstripe Bowl and did, 29-16. The predictions were right.
  • In North Carolina’s Belk Bowl, North Carolina was favored, but not by nearly enough. The 39-17 defeat of Cincinnati was more lopsided even than the score indicated, let alone the predictions. Some sentimentalists picked Cincinnati. We need another Cincinnatus today, but the guess is still wrong.
  • Speaking of lopsided, in the Russell Athletic Bowl Louisville was picked over Miami, but again not by enough. Final score Louisville 36, Miami 9.
  • Prognosticators were on more solid ground in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl, picking Kansas State comfortably over Michigan. Kansas State won 31-14.

 

Bridgewater

What does a non-football expert take away from all this? Well, not too much. Some possible or tentative hypotheses:

1) Strong loyalties might make for wrong predictions. But on the strict thumbs-up-thumbs-down of picking the winning and losing team in a game, big-time indifference does not seem to make for accuracy. The better guesses came in games that more people care about. The bowls fewer people cared about, such as the New Orleans Bowl with two Louisiana teams and the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl that ran out of pizza for media, got picked/predicted wrong. Maybe more heads are better than fewer.

2) Other things being equal, the picks either did go or might as well have gone by conference. On the whole, the stronger the conference, the more likely an accurate pick. SEC schools have of course not played yet, since the best bowls have yet to come–more on that, later. But Colorado State was correctly picked over Washington State (Pac-12), Kansas State (Big 12) over Michigan (Big Ten), and Notre Dame (ACC) over Rutgers. It will be interesting to see whether this pattern, if it is a pattern, holds up for more bowls in which teams from strong conferences play each other. But in the meantime, it’s beginning to look as though either objectivity is overrated, or indifference doesn’t make for objectivity (accuracy). Maybe more resources of time and attention do make a difference in quality of prognostications . . .

3) For an expert gambler, it would make more sense to bet on the prognosticators than on college football.

For the record, this writer is against betting on college sports in the first place. To have the governors of two states wager a bushel of oysters against a bushel of corndogs, or whatever, is one thing. To wager money on the bones and brains of guys often not old enough to drink (legally) is another.

Also for the record, I have come around to the view that college football players should be paid. The laborer is worthy of his hire. After many years of holding the opposite position, I have switched. Partly this is the influence of reading articles by The Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins.

Back to this season’s bowl games: How will the next picks hold up?

Odds as of Dec. 29.

Spread predictions here.

ScreenShot December 30th bowls

Coming up today and tonight, we have,

Monday, Dec. 30:

Who will get today’s games wrong?

 

More to come.

It is difficult not to write satire

Media and Washington, part I

A short reminiscence: soon after first moving to the D.C. area, in 1982-83, I happened to read a piece in the Style section of the Washington Post that puzzles me to this day. I can’t remember who wrote it–just as well–but a key line was  something about being “at a [Washington-area] dinner party and finding that you’re sitting next to an English professor.” Being new to the region, and heavily under the influence of All the President’s Men and books about journalism by authors such as David Halberstam, I read the Post appreciatively. I was also a recent English professor myself, relocated to do research at the Folger Shakespeare Library, where I was a reader. (I still have my Folger reader’s card but now do research mainly at the Library of Congress, for a book I am writing.)

Years later, I still do not see what’s wrong with being seated next to an English professor. Not that there isn’t the occasional prof rudeness, of course. At an academic dinner party years ago, after winning an essay contest and delivering a talk to an audience of psychoanalysts, I was seated next to a professor who refrained from speaking to me throughout dinner.

Oedipus and Apollonius

He was prominent, and senior, and I was a very non-senior and non-prominent member of the extreme opposite sex, as Dave Barry once put it; those were the operative factors, so far as I know, since I had not wronged the man or offered provocation. Other people in the party, including his wife, compensated for him, without saying anything overt, and anyway that kind of thing does not crush me. Unlike the Bushes, my family actually was from Texas, and doing that stuff to me is like the old joke about “Have you got the wrong vampire.” Professor Deborah Tannen might find it an example of electric-blanket conversation (or non-conversation). Still, for my money, that’s the kind of English professor you’d rather not be seated next to, and admittedly it is ironic when conservatives, status-ridden individuals, and others of purported refinement and blahblahblah engage in the kind of conduct satirized by the greatest writers in the traditional literary canon–Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Bronte–but that’s an aside. The thrust of the Style piece, whoever wrote it, was not to satirize solipsistic arrogance, snobbishness, and rudeness but to imply that there’s nobody more devoid of status than an English prof. (Sad to say, some English professors of the old school probably felt the same way about journalists.)

On the 'electric blanket'

Water under the bridge by now, of course–except that the Style attitude pretty much reflected that of the national political press, going far to explain why the national political press missed every significant national story from before the Iraq invasion to after the mortgage-derivatives debacle. At the moment, the nyah-nyah-nyah crowd is hot on the web site for the Affordable Care Act, bypassing the development that the U.S. is at last on the threshold of entering the twenty-first century. More on that later. For now, suffice it to say that some self-conceived intellectuals are in unholy alliance with those who greet every bit of bad news about the president with ugly smiles. I have seen those smiles elsewhere–not only in the South–in contexts unrelated to health insurance.

Some of this is temporary. As said, more later.

Back to the topic of lizard-brain behavior. I was not brought up to it, nor were my close friends. When it crops out intensely in a group of well-educated people, or nominally well-educated people, it does seem to be a sign of highly insecure times for the world of letters.

Academic job market

There is a peculiar sting in our present situation–by ‘our’ I mean the present situation of humanity, including Americans. All our lives, most of us have been told of an overlap between education and employment. The lesson is still being taught–do well in school, and you will do well in life. I love education. Doing well in school means learning to appreciate the inestimable privilege of reading and writing. It boosts the immune system. It means enjoying a work and play experience, an opportunity, and a window onto a larger world that millions of people around the globe can hardly dream of. Every reliable statistic also shows a correlation between education and income, between education and employment, and between education and financial stability–up to a point. The rub comes when that point is reached, and I am not referring either to the fact that most billionaires and millionaires lack post-professional degrees, or to the fact that most PhDs are not millionaires. I refer to the fact that education, even good education, is not a guarantee of ‘success’. Many well-educated people have to struggle daily, or at least yearly, to stay in the middle class. We have seen the phenomenon in college teaching and in writing for years (decades), particularly in the humanities; we also see it in more tech-oriented occupations that involve knowledge–particularly the kinds of knowledge found in outsource destinations in India. (Simply eschewing the humanities is a palliative, not a cure.)

One reason why education sometimes seems to succeed best in the classroom is that in the classroom there is an operative principle of fairness. All people are fallible, including teachers, but in the classroom the operative model is that students (people) get their fair share of time and attention, they get an equitable share of resources including books, and at least according to theory, they get the grade they earn. In the classroom model, furthermore, everyone gets to hear the rules, including the guidelines on how to do the work and thus how to earn the grade. You might call it training and supervision–the very activities, ironically, not required of ‘management’ in Wall-Street-oriented corporate rewards or reinforcement. (N.b. the classroom model of fairness, i.e. getting the grade you earn in the class, is exactly the model under assault by the corporate product of externally imposed standardized testing and test-prepping.)

No wonder a certain breed of politico eagerly disparages the ‘nanny party’. The good shepherd is the figure who keeps some individuals from imposing on others.

 

Corporate culture

Looking at the bigger picture from another perspective, the reason the fairness model is used in the classroom is that it works. It conduces to learning, keeps students (people) alive and well, and keeps them engaged. So much the worse when well-educated people, or nominally educated people, jettison it when they leave the classroom or when they graduate from college or graduate school. Lizard-brain behavior inside the world of learning does the world of learning no good.

Lizard brain model

On a related topic, consider the study below re-posted by Daily Kos:

  • Demographics: National Journal has compiled some interesting data on how intensely clustered well-educated people are becoming. In 1970, 24.6 percent of the nation’s people with bachelor’s degrees were clustered in 20 major metropolitan areas… but in 2010, 43.4 percent of the nation’s people with bachelor’s degrees were clustered in those same 20 major metropolitan areas.

That has large economic implications (as the trend toward “two Americas” continues apace), but also political ones, with even further clustering of likely Democratic voters into fewer places (which is fine from the presidential level, but bad when thinking about Congress). The accompanying interactive graphic shows clearly the link between increasing share of college-educated people and overall local economic health… and, though the graph doesn’t specifically address it, also a pretty clear relationship with which areas are trending toward and away from the Democrats. (David Jarman)”

To the couple of lines of thought expressed here, that the study has economic and political implications, add a third: there are too few jobs for educated people, any more, outside the 20 major metropolitan areas. This simplification contains more than a grain of truth. Outside major metropolitan areas, good jobs for educated people have shrunk. Teachers, college teachers, attorneys–and a glut of attorneys on the market has already forced law school enrollment down–physicians and dentists, yes; but do journalists or chemists, engineers and architects, make a living working full-time at their occupation in small towns or small cities? When they do make a living, working full-time in their chosen field, do they also have the option of another job in the same town, should they need to find one?

Not new, but recommended: As written elsewhere, one illuminating book on the enormous changes in the U.S. since 1973 is Wallace Peterson’s Silent Depression. Its title makes it sound like a psychology tome, but it’s not; the subtitle is Twenty-Five Years of Wage Squeeze and Middle-Class Decline. (Note that Mr. Peterson also knows how to hyphenate correctly.) It reads like an autobiography for college graduates from 1968 through 1988.

Veterans Day, 2013

Veterans Day, 2013

 

It would feel strange to wish someone “Happy Veterans Day.” Not that I don’t think of the veterans I know best on Veterans Day, but I think of them on many other days. My father was in the Army for almost five years, in World War II; his older brother was in the Navy; his younger brother was in the Air Force, or rather the Army Air Corps (17th Bomb Group, 34th Squadron). Land, sea, air. My grandparents were exceptionally lucky: all their sons and sons-in-law served in World War II, and all came back safe, setting aside the bout of malaria my father contracted in a New Guinea jungle. He came home weighing 130 pounds, at almost six feet, but he and my uncles were not critically wounded.

New Guinea

Funny the little misconceptions we can grow up with. For years, I thought my late father had dashed out to enlist after Pearl Harbor, as I said to friends, and wrote. Actually he dashed out to enlist before Pearl Harbor. His East Texas family followed the news, followed world events as well as they could, and had a strong interest in history. His parents later owned and operated a little newspaper in their tiny hometown. My father himself owned one for a year–something I did not realize until much later, since I was four years old at the time. I do remember my mother saying, maybe literally, that his linotype operator made more than he did. He believed in paying employees.

 

FDR by radio

In any case, the family followed the news on the radio, in newspapers, and in the community, in the era of the Dust Bowl, the Great Depression, and the New Deal. They were civic-minded;  my dad’s pet cat, when he was growing up, was named Enum, as in the old voter rolls (enum.). They were pretty well aware, or as aware as reporting permitted, of events stirring in Europe.

Britain and France formally declared war on Germany September 3, 1939–the day my father turned seventeen. His is not one of those stories about a kid falsifying his age in order to enlist, like fellow Texan Audie Murphy, but he surely felt that his mission was in the cards, and having been double-promoted, he graduated from high school early, going on to a term or two of college before joining up, once he was legal.* He was put into Third Radio Intelligence Company, U.S. Army Signal Corps.

The company was pretty new at the time. Major J. S. Harley, author of Reading the Enemy’s Mail, says that

“In October 1939 the Third Radio Intelligence Company, one of the first tactically oriented radio intelligence units, was activated at Fort Monmouth. A cadre of eleven men, plus one recruit and an officer, formed the nucleus of the company. By November the company reached full strength and began an intensive four week training program. The problems the unit faced in training would beset new units throughout the war.”

A year later, by the time my father joined, the presumably full-strength unit was at Fort Sam Houston in Texas. My parents’ old papers contain printed menus for a special Thanksgiving dinner and Christmas dinner celebrated by the company at Fort Sam Houston, bound with embossed covers, tied cords, and a frontispiece-type tissue over the menu page. My father’s name is on the guest list for Christmas dinner in 1940, between Jack J. Bridwell and Darrell J. Cagle, under Oliver L. Blumberg and above Leon C. Calley, with several other Johns and Jacks. His name is not on the list for Thanksgiving that year (November 21); he may have entered the company after the menu went to print. Thanksgiving dinner began with shrimp cocktail and oyster stew and went on to turkey and ham, followed by fruit cake, pies, punch, ice cream, fruit, and cigarettes (included on the menu). Christmas dinner was less extensive, though it again began with oyster stew and ended with cigarettes. Those may have been the best meals they ate for five years, those who survived the next five years. The menus themselves were probably the dressiest documents owned by most of the young guys in the company, aside from their recent high school diplomas.

 

Nazi movement

Beyond any doubt, John W. Burns joined the army to fight fascism. Although he did not talk about bloody war experiences to his children, his views on fascism and Nazi Germany were abundantly clear. However, the anecdotes he shared with immediate family, in front of the children, were the non-grisly experiences. There was the time on a stop somewhere in Europe when the troops were privileged to hear a great opera singer. As my father told it, the story was that the troops had been promised entertainment, and when the singer appeared–an older woman, not glamorous, not a pin-up girl–there was some disappointment, maybe a little cat-calling and sarcastic wolf-whistling. But when she opened her mouth, as my father put it, the most ignorant guy in the place knew that this was the greatest voice he had ever heard, and when she finished, they gave her a standing ovation.

The Susan Boyle experience, sixty years earlier.

Then there was the time some of the guys, by that time in the Pacific and on shore in Sydney or another Australian city, decided to go horseback riding. Where the horses came from I do not know, but the short story is that the horse my father got on–with his scant riding experience, drawn from farmland in East Texas, not a ranch in West Texas–turned out to be a retired steeplechaser. So the horse galloped off, jumping fences and ditches, careening down the streets, and some local called out, British-style, “Stop that animal!” with my father thinking something along the lines of I wish I could.

I also remember my father saying he learned to play chess in the army. As he put it, a Jewish guy from New York, in his unit, noticed that he was smart, and ‘made him’ learn to play chess so he would have somebody to play with. (Spread the pronouns around, divide them up, and distribute them equitably.) He was pretty good, especially for someone who did not play regularly (good enough so that when he happened to walk through the living room where my child and I were playing chess, years ago, he quickly gave my son enough tips to beat me).

Only at the time of the funeral, and from his brothers, did I hear the other anecdotes.

As the chances of war went, my father was not sent to Germany; he was sent to the Far East (this is the Army). One stint was in the Philippines, on which his perspective was that the Filipinos loved American soldiers, who would give them things–a penny, a cigarette, a stick of gum–but detested the British, who would try to force them to shine their shoes or do odd jobs, in a final reductio ad absurdum of waning colonialism. The view may have been a bit idealistic, but setting aside the natural chauvinism, he appreciated the Filipinos’ desire for independence and their trust in America.

Philippines today

There was the stop-over in Australia en route, including the horse outing. He spent long months in New Guinea, with a lot of time spent by the troops wondering when they would get to go home, and whether they would get medals, or promotions, or pay hikes, as they heard other troops did. At some point the troops received a big crate of books, sent by kind souls back home, and my father later said with pardonable hyperbole that he read every great book ever written, in six months, in the army. He mentioned specifically Huck Finn, and Dostoevsky’s passage about how even a man stranded alone on a narrow mountain ledge, in miserable conditions, would cling to life. (The passage may have struck a chord.) There was still enough to do, and to witness. One day–according to my uncle–my father was walking through the jungle, by himself, and rather suddenly walked out into a clearing. At the same moment, a Japanese soldier entered the clearing from another direction. The Japanese soldier gave a single horrified look at the young American, pulled out a grenade, and blew himself up with it.

I do not know exactly which year the incident occurred. My impression is that it was close to the end of the war. I do know that it was not dinner-table conversation. My father may have told his parents, after he got home, and certainly told his brothers, but neither he nor anyone else dwelt on it aloud.

 

In memoriam: John Wilson Burns (September 3, 1939 – July 7, 1997)

*Added Nov. 12:

His Honorable Discharge paper shows “date of enlistment” to be 5 Sep. 1940, two days after his eighteenth birthday.

“Decorations and citations”: Asiatic Pacific with Bronze Star; Distinguished Unit Badge.

Mark Obenshain on “the so-called living wage”

Mark Obenshain on “the so-called living wage”

Back on May 7, 2006, State Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) published a Commentary piece in the Richmond Times Dispatch on the evils of the living wage. Obenshain has not authored many published articles, and this short piece provides a glimpse into his likely thinking should he occupy the Commonwealth’s Attorney General’s office, now inhabited by Ken Cuccinelli II.

Obenshain

The topic of the living wage arose because some University of Virginia students had demonstrated in favor of the university’s placing a floor under what it pays staff who clean the restrooms and maintain the grounds, etc., for Thomas Jefferson’s beloved brainchild.

University of Virginia rotunda

Obenshain calls it a “so-called living wage policy.”

Signs of the times

Obenshain titled his commentary “A Teachable Moment?; UVa’s Casteen Could Have Taught Lesson in Econ 101.” While some people might think it commendable that the students cared about someone other than self, Obenshain, au contraire, is cool with their being jailed:

“For four days in April, UVa president John Casteen was the target of a ’60s style sit-in protest by students agitating for the university to adopt a so-called living-wage policy. After trying to talk, cajole, and even starve the students out of his office, Casteen finally called the cops. UVa police ultimately hauled the protesters away and gave them the opportunity to finish their protest at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail.”

If anything, Obenshain seems to have favored a sterner response, although he does not say what. (“As it turns out, Casteen just wanted his office back.”)

“Here is what the protesters want at UVa: They want the university to raise the minimum wage it pays its employees to $10.72. Moreover, the protesters want the university to quit doing business with any private enterprise that refuses to adopt the same minimum hourly wage.”

Imagine the effrontery. Some students on Jefferson’s historic grounds actually wanted the university to adopt a policy of paying $10.72 per hour to employees who bag up and cart away used tampons or clean up the school’s cafeterias and other eating places.

As Obenshain points out, “Right now, unemployment in the Charlottesville-Albemarle region is about 2.1 percent.” His take-away? ” There is absolutely no indication that the university is unable to hire qualified people for jobs classified at the bottom of its pay scale.” In other words, the standard CEO-type argument for paying more–that higher pay is needed to attract job candidates–cannot be made.

That argument absent,  in this mindset there is no argument  for improving the pay of those at the bottom:

“The bottom of the UVa pay scale is already $9.37 per hour–81 percent higher than the federal minimum wage and nearly 40 percent above the state’s minimum hiring rate!”

Today, caviar; tomorrow, the world!

It would be nice to hear Obenshain–or Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, or now-Attorney General Cuccinelli–say this kind of thing about CEO pay.

But this kind of justification is precisely what is not offered about CEO pay, in the public discourse–that it’s already higher than the minimum amount paid to other CEO’s, that it could be lower, etc. They just don’t go that way. They just don’t say, never get around to saying, “Hey, it could be lower, you know.”

The mindset displayed in Obenshain’s commentary is more recognizable. When confronted by something you dislike, such as the proposition that people doing the dirtiest jobs should be paid a little better, always make a threat:

“Some of those employees recognize that if the university’s minimum hourly rate of pay goes up, the university will have a choice–employ fewer employees or raise tuition. A victory by the living-wage campaign could mean no wage for an unlucky few.”

Let’s hope the author did not do himself justice.

Here’s where he spent more ink:

“Capitulation to the protesters’ demands also would have a tremendous impact in the private sector. Many businesses competing with UVa in the limited labor market immediately would have to pay more to attract and retain qualified help. “

–And by paying more, we mean what, exactly?

“A UVa business partner might be required to raise its entry-level pay from $6, $7, or $8 per hour to $10.72 per hour.” [emphasis added]

That way catastrophe lies. As ever in this kind of thinking, consequences run the short gamut from dominoes falling to apocalypse now:

“That business would have to charge the university more for goods and services because of the increased labor cost” [no evidence]

One thing leads to another:

“–which the university undoubtedly would pass on to students or to taxpayers.” [no evidence]

And on:

“That business might even flounder and fail because competitors that are not UVa business partners would have lower labor costs.”

I always like that one–the argument that the only way a business can stay afloat is by underpaying its employees, or at least the ones at the bottom.

Imagine: a business failing because it could not pay its employees the going or market rate. So much for ‘responsibility’. Incidentally, when was the last time that happened?

Polonius economics. As follows the night the day, we proceed to the inevitable billboard mantra:

“The bottom line is that the market, not the state, is best equipped to set wages. This is simple economics.”

Ah, back from the brink.

The simple economics here are pretty clear–the piece boils down to a Send-Me-Money message, from a state senator to businesses averse to the minimum wage.

Less clear is why this mindset would be good for the Attorney General’s office. You can offer a lot of criticisms of the state administration of Gov. McDonnell, but you cannot convincingly accuse him, or Cuccinelli, of being insufficiently friendly to business.