August 28, 2006 at 11:28 pm
(Social/Economic)
Washington Monthly’s alternate take on college ratings is back this year. And the top school you’ve never heard of is…
Ok, yeah, probably South Carolina State. Fine. My alma mater actually dropped a rank (pbbbh!) from last year, down to 25. But we didn’t fall as much as prestigious Harvard, the perennial darling of the US News ranking, which is now ranked lower than Case according to the Washington Monthly criteria.
And yes, it’s easy to favor the poll that ranks one’s alma mater the highest. But really, this is important stuff. Who do you think is doing more to promote meritocracy in the US: the well-ranked state schools (and private institutions with the willingness and means to provide for less economically-gifted students) or the well reputed, high priced private colleges with their legacies?
4 Comments
August 27, 2006 at 7:02 pm
(Personal)
During the 12-month period from May ‘05 to May ‘06, in which I flew more than I had ever flown before, both for business and leisure, I discovered one thing: the more I flew, the more terrified of flying I became. In May and again in August, I flew to Atlanta on the reincarnation of Valujet. Somewhere in that period I made the mistake of reading the flight recorder transcripts for one of the doomed Valujet flights…in which the last things the passengers heard over the intercom was “For now we just ask you to sit back and relax and enjoy your flight to Atlanta, Georgia.”
In September, returning from our honeymoon in Cancun, my wife and I were on a flight that passed by a tropical storm over the mid-Atlantic states. It was a pretty impressive storm but it didn’t cause too many bumps. In December, I flew though O’Hare the same snowy night that a plane slid off the runway into the street at nearby Chicago-Midway. In February, on a flight from Cincinnati to Lexington we hit the worst turbulence I’ve ever experienced, and even the dead-heading flight attendant across the aisle put down her book and held on for dear life. Finally, in May I was on a flight to Chicago that was cancelled (due to bad weather in the Chicago area) but was able to get on a later flight. But it turned out they overfilled it and asked me to get off the plane. I got off, more relieved at not having to fly through that storm than angry. “I’ve seen Final Destination. I know how this ends,” I thought. Of course, the flight arrived in Chicago just fine without me.
During this time, my fear of flying became pervasive enough that a couple of times I dreamt that I was waiting for a flight at the Atlanta airport and watched as a plane crashed on takeoff.
You know, it’s weird. I know that driving is really far more dangerous than flying on a commercial airline but somehow it’s easier to convince myself that the chance is still very slim or that if a car crash happens, it happens. Maybe it’s the higher speeds or the altitude. Maybe it’s just the number of people involved all at once.
Nonetheless, today’s crash of a Comair flight at Bluegrass Airport is even more shocking than usual. Because many of the people on board were neighbors in some sense, because of how familiar I’ve become with the airport and even that flight over the past year, even because it’s been so long since we’ve had a commercial airline crash in the US.
My thoughts tonight are with people who lost loved ones in this crash.
Comments
August 18, 2006 at 8:30 pm
(Science/Technology)
I was given a story about the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car. I learned a few things–I didn’t know there was a documentary out about electric cars and ensuing conspiracies. I didn’t even realize GM made an electric car (this, the movie would argue, is due to intentionally weak marketing.) In fact, with the exception of a few home-brew modifications to hybrid vehicles, I hadn’t really heard of any all-electric vehicles. So it was very interesting to hear that they’d been killed. Not surprisingly, the villain of this summer blockbuster is the government and corporate greed.
I thought it would be interesting to see a counterpoint. First, I found GM’s response to a Thomas Friedman article. I thought this was a pretty weak defense, all in all. (Hey, I suppose it was posted on their blog and, well…is that the choir I hear?) It did mention their work with E-85, which is a nice move. But it also makes the statement that they have more cars with 30+ mpg ratings than anyone and, um, they also have, what, eight nameplates (besides their foreign brands: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Saturn, Hummer and Saab) and just one heckuva lot of models for each. And when I think of big cars, I think “Hummer, Suburban, Tahoe, Escalade, Navigator,” all but the last of which are GM. Sorry, your argument has been DECLINED! The final post, which is most directly in response to the movie, does bring up some promising suggestions: that the technology evolved into current research and that the company is working hard to create hybrid versions of SUV’s (the Saturn VUE and the Tahoe) which will percent-wise increase fuel efficiency more than putting the technology in a smaller car like a Civic. But it also suggests that hydrogen fuel cells are the wave of the future. This may be true but it ignores the fact that they are woefully inefficient now and that, rather than remove our dependence on fossil fuels, it will most likely just shift the dependence to a different one. (i.e., coal to fuel power plants to provide the energy for electrolysis.) Now, electric cars would also depend on that, but the point is, they said they were working to remove our dependence on fossil fuels.
I think the response may be more interesting than the documentary itself in that it pits fossil fuel believers against hydrogen cell proponents against battery purists. But the story may have generated enough interest for me to actually go check showtimes…
3 Comments
August 15, 2006 at 6:00 pm
(Science/Technology)
Note to political candidates: If you are going to berate someone, say a campaign worker working for your opponent, the proper way to do so is to have a lackey make the comment so you can suspend him afterward and save face. Just a hint.
4 Comments
August 9, 2006 at 8:37 pm
(Environment)
In order to prevent what would otherwise surely disintegrate into all-out war between naturalists and ATV fans, a protected Wildlife area may get a solution in the form of a compromise, in which the park is split, with portions dedicated to ATV’s and other motorized vehicles, with other areas set aside for more peaceful nature retreats. Similar (although not the same) as my proposal to allow privatized access to private land.
Close enough for me. It’s nice to see sensible solutions (which in my estimation is anything that prevents loud, nasty engines from tearing up all of the lands that we try to convince ourselves are being preserved.)
Comments
August 9, 2006 at 8:25 pm
(Political)
I haven’t read too much real analysis on the Ned Lamont primary victory in Connecticut…maybe that’s the beauty of this blog…right. Anyway here is my take, unblemished by reflections of other’s thoughts.
Lamont won because, in part, those of us on the “Left” tend to have strong convictions…so strong that sometimes, despite our better judgment, we refuse to compromise. 100,000 Democrats in Connecticut would rather not have to compromise on the issue of the Iraq war than send an incumbent into the fall Senate race. Perhaps, with the ills of the Republican party, this will work out. Perhaps some of those 100,000 were riding a wave of emotion that made them forget that the larger battle looms in November and will wake up in a week or two feeling like they may have made the wrong choice. Keep your fingers crossed.
I feel like we lack an issue to really crystallize around, though…Everyone has their pet agenda: environment, social welfare, reproductive rights, The War (and why we shouldn’t be there, or why we should leave straightaway, etc.) and it goes on and on. It’s easy to criticize someone for focusing on one issue and yet it’s hard to make a collection of pet issues into a cohesive platform, especially when everyone is focused on widely dispersed issues. The Dems and the Left in general just seems to hop from issue to issue. Why can’t these pet issues be generalized (at the expense, it’s true, of some of the integrity of the individual causes) into a single thread that ties them together? This is what I want to see as a voter. Perhaps this is because the single thread thing has backfired–too touchy-feely. What’s wrong with having the courage to stand for your ideals?
Comments
