Most Depressing Education Related Infographic

As a scholar, I find this graphic utterly depressing.  As a citizen who formerly resided in many of these states, I find this graphic a dramatic display of twisted priorities:

This is just awful on a stick.  Especially since bigtime college sports do not make money for the rest of the university.  It may sometimes pay for the big time college sports and sometimes it may pay for the smaller sports, but it does not lead to universities having more money for research and teaching and whatever else.  And, of course, the money does not really go to the student athletes as we well know.

So, if I had the power to enact one incredibly anti-market law in the US, aside from perhaps limiting the pay that execs get, it might be this: allow universities to collude to manage the salaries of coaches.  Perhaps set their wages to be no more than match the highest prof's salary.  Allow them to still make money on merch and the lame tv/radio shows, but limit how much money comes out of the universities' revenues (athletic and otherwise) to pay these folks.  There are limited spots in the NBA and NFL for coaches so you will get mighty fine coaches on less salary.

One last note--hey, gotta love Nevada.


H/T to Kyle Saunders.

Dissertation Daze

Dissertations are in the news.  Uh oh.  Yep, not in a good way.  I tend not to read Jennifer Rubin as my twitter feed usually distills her arguments, but the column raises the question of what responsibility do dissertation committees have for the content of the dissertations they supervise. 

It is a fair question in general.  The answer is: somewhat.  Or sort of.  That is, whether I agree or disagree with a student's dissertation should have little impact over whether I think it merits a PhD.  A dissertation is a serious and original investigation of a significant question.  Is the dissertation a contribution to science?  I always found that question a bit intimidating and a bit pretentious, but very much appreciated the pro-dean experiences I had at McGill where the hard scientists did very clearly elaborate their contribution to science.  Whether I agree with the conclusions and implications is almost entirely irrelevant.  The evaluation depends on whether the question is important, whether the methods chosen were appropriate, whether the research design was well-executed, whether the findings derive from the research, and whether the implications derive from the findings.*

* By the way, no one ever trained me on how to supervise a dissertation or what the criteria should be.  Ooops. 

To give you the clearest example, one of the first dissertations I supervised at McGill targeted my work directly.  The student was out to prove me wrong.  I surely did not agree with the conclusions, but did not mind the effort to prove me wrong (hate me if you want, but just cite me).  Science, even or especially social science, involves conflicting ideas and complex realities, so a well-executed piece of research may not convince me to change my views but it probably influences how I think about things. 

Most of the rest of my dissertations students worked on stuff that was largely unrelated to my work, so some produced understandings of the world that convinced me and others not so much.  But I approved of them via my signature on the various forms because I found them to be well executed investigations of interesting questions.  Would I sign off on a very racist dissertation?  Probably not because I doubt that it would have the necessary ingredients--well articulated question, logical theoretical development, good research design, and so on.  On the other hand, I did supervise a dissertation that might be read as advice for potential miltias about the strategies one chooses to get support affects one's likelihood of surviving attacks.

Of course, the really important thing to know about Political Science dissertations is that they are long, longer than nearly any other field.  But that is a topic for another day and another post.

A Short Rant On Boomers vs. Everyone Else

Everyone is aflutter because Time has a cover calling Millennials narcissists.  Well, as a self-admitted narcissist, I am just a wee bit skeptical.  How do I measure inter-generational comparisons and self-centeredness?  Well, I simply marvel at stances on where society is placing its priorities.  In the US and Canada (can't speak to the rest of the world), the older folks are most resistant to changing the current spending patterns, where most of the money in social security, health care and the like goes to ... the older folks.  We have seen heaps more cuts in education the past decade than in spending on senior citizens and those approaching senior-ness.

Now, I get the politics of it--older folks vote and they vote on such issues with great determination, so they get the politicians' attention.  But we tend to overlook that this political calculation of those seeking elections depends on the preferences of the older folks--that they care more about themselves than about their kids/grandkids.  I am tempted to insert some snark at the homophobic take on Keynes, but I will resist.  The key here is that today's spending patterns is not the fault of politicians--they are merely representing those who vote and are attentive to a few issues.  Nay, the fault lies with the older folks who are self-centered.

Time for a New Religion

A friend of mine (h/t to JJ) posted on her facebook page the divergent reactions to the National Household Survey of Canada, which is like a census but is no longer mandatory (Harper hates social science along with all other sciences, apparently).

JJ noted that the anglophone press noted that immigrants are speaking more French than before.  The French press notes that 20% of the immigrants do not speak French.  Oh joy, the cup is either 80% full or 20% empty?

For me, what this means is this: I want Confirmation Bias to be a religion because I so strongly believe in it.  Of course, those who want to see the "census" reporting French is under attack note that not all immigrants are picking up French, and, of course, those who think that the language thing is over-wrought in Quebec (which it is, I can confirm with bias).  People see what they want to see much of the time.  How can 80% of immigrants learning French be insufficient?  Oy.

Anyhow, now that we are trying to start up Confirmation Bias as a religion, what does that require?  Hmmmm.  From here, I cropped this:

The idea is that information is filtered as it comes in, so that only that which confirms one's beliefs makes it through.

Ok, next step is dogma, which we borrow from the Ironborn of Game of Thrones: That Which We Believe is Never Dead Disconfirmed.

The only rite of passage required to join is to believe what one has always believed no matter how much disconfirming information is provided. 

Holidays? We can steal the holidays of pre-existing religions by focusing on those aspects of each holiday that celebrate the selective filtering of information.

I am not an expert on religion, so let me know what we need to add, and if it fits with latent existing beliefs, I will support your suggestions.  If not, then not.

Breaking vs. Unbreaking

How best to illustrate the problem of post-conflict reconstruction?

Thanks to twitter conversation, I came up with this at CIC.

And the soundtrack inevitably would be this.

Meeting a Canadian Hero

This afternoon, a couple of NPSIA students, NPSIA Director Dane Rowlands and I attended a Carleton U Alumni Association luncheon.  The keynote speaker was Ken Taylor, who served as Canada's Ambassador to Iran during the Iranian Revolution.  Taylor's role and that of Canada in the rescue of six American diplomats were slighted in Argo.  Taylor made no bones about it in his talk today, displaying something that Americans tend to miss: a keen Canadian nationalism.  This was a big moment in Canadian history, making a difference in the lives of six Americans and in America's situation in the Mideast at the time.  Taylor did more than just open doors (as he is mostly depicted in the movie), and Canada did most of the paperwork.


Indeed, Taylor responded to a question about the passports used by the Americans with this story:

The Canadians had prepped the passports but then the CIA used the wrong stamp (using the Shah's dating system and not the new revolutionary regime's).  Ottawa had to do the passports twice, and it was not Ben Affleck's character (Tony Mendez) doing the passport alterations in a hotel room.

Taylor gave an excellent talk about his experiences in the Canadian foreign service, and some interesting perspectives on the current situations in Iran and Ottawa.  So, a well spent lunch hour or two.  

Game of Thrones, IR Theory Update 3.5

Since we are halfway through the third season (but not the third book), and we got a nice dialogue about the interplay between nation, nationalism and anarchy between Varys and Littlefinger, it is time for us to ponder how these basic concepts play in Westeros.*

* A reminder that Westeros is only one part of this world--there are the places beyond the seas that have their own political systems and identities.  Plus the world beyond the Wall is not really part of Westeros either.

When I first wrote about the IR of Game of Thrones, I tended to treat each House as a country of its own, at least the major ones.  But another way to look at this is that Westeros is one multi-ethnic nation espcially given the  aforementioned conversation about the meaning of "realm."  If one considers Robb Stark's campaign as a secessionist one, then Westeros as a nation-state makes more sense. 

Anyhow, Varys argues that he serves the realm, even if it is a bit of a myth or lie.  Sounds like imagined community to me.  That the shared sense of belonging is based on belief and shared perceptions rather than any reality yet still has real impacts on the actors and their identities.  Without a shared sense of community and identity, without all of those myths and symbols (the pointy throne for Westeros, the White House in every attack on DC movie this spring), we may only have anarchy or as it is called in the show: chaos.*  Of course, for IR theorists, anarchy simply means without government which may or not be chaotic.

* As pointed out elsewhere, in the old D&D games, characters had two sets of alignments--good/evil and lawful/chaotic.  The contrast between Melisandre and Thoros perhaps.

While the alliance by marriage stuff that dominates the politics seems so very feudal, it can also be seen as a power-sharing system that gives as many of the major Houses/ethnic groups a stake in the political system.*  If all of the marriages go right (not spoiling things for the non-book readers), Joffrey, the son of two Houses (Barratheon and Lannister, sort of if we ignore Joffrey's true father), will be married to a third house, Tyrell.  Meanwhile, Tyrion will be married to a Stark, and so on.  The Lannister strategy, for all of its, well, evil, is quite inclusive.  The only folks left outside are the Martells and the Aryns.  Mycella, the third child of Robert and Cersei (ok, Jaime and Cersei) was sent off by Tyrion to the Martells to build some ties. Tywin is also reaching out to the Aryns via Littlefinger's pursuit of Lysa Tully. 

*  Of course, power-sharing has often been criticized for not being democratic but a series of elite bargains.  And Tywin really is not sharing power, but he is, via the various claims that get inherited by the progeny of these marriages, giving the various houses stakes in the current Lannister-dominated political order.

Of course, the irony here is that we know that Littlefinger is out for himself.  While Tywin Lannister is trying to create a Lannister-based order, Littlefinger is trying to upset all efforts as he sees more opportunity in chaos.  As an IR person, I could use this to focus on anarchy at the international level, but I prefer to stick with the domestic analogy.  In civil wars, those who control the smuggling become enriched and powerful--this is the ladder of which Littlefinger speaks.  As a brothel owner and then as minister of the coin, Littlefinger was best positioned to benefit from the war and the chaos that ensued.  He started from a position of low birth but has used his "indispensible-ness" to gain a title, lands, and trust.  Well, sort of.  Tywin probably wanted a Lannister to control the money, but still gave Littlefinger heaps of opportunity.  As we shall see, Littlefinger's plans are pretty damn complex and orderly as he uses disorder to his advantage. 

The contrast between the intel expert seeking to promote order, even it is soaked in blood, and the legitimized organized criminal promoting and taking advantage of political conflict (his betrayal of Ned was key, remember) will be an interesting contest even if most of it happens behind the scenes with only a few (and the audience) privy to it.

The Game of Thrones is not for those afraid to spill blood or break a promise.  Just like civil war and ethnic conflict (and IR, of course).

Dallying at DFAIT Due to the DRC

I went to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade today as they had a roundtable on the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  I don't know bumpkus about the Congo since I only studied its politics for the years 1960-1963--when Katanga tried to secede.  But I went today because the topic was intervention there, and I figured I could catch up a bit on one of the most intensive/extensive/enduring UN efforts. 

What did I learn?

• M-23, the new rebel group getting heaps of attention, despite having various ICC indictees involved, is actually better than average on human rights abuses.  Of course, that says a lot about the average rebel group .... or government in Congo.  The army of the DRC--the FARDC--is pretty awful.
• The various rounds of DDR (disarmament, demobilization, reintegration) have meant the inclusion of "former" rebels in the FADRC, which means that the government's military is infiltrated, that not all of the DDR-ed have given up their allegiances.  I know that the prospect of this is one thing that makes DDR hard, but I am curious whether there has been much social science to assess when this problem is particularly bad.  Any readers have any suggestions?
• That DFAIT, the Canadian government, and perhaps Canada in general has awesome MAT leave.  The person running the roundtable is going to be gone for a year as she is about to have a baby.  I know I have heard about this policy before, but when I am reminded of this, I just think this is awesome.  I had, um, a few days.  And it was a very tough year.  So, much kudos to Canada for this policy.
• Speaking of such stuff, this roundtable at DFAIT is a lot like a political science class at McGill--the gender balance was about 65%-35% females to males.  All of the CIDA reps who came over were female.  Not sure what, if anything, this means.  Is the DRC as a topic more likely to have female desk officers at Foreign Affairs and at Canada's Development branch?  Do the two agencies  just generally have more women?  The Department of National Defence, military folks excluded, seemed more balanced. 

Anyhow, it was an interesting morning in the big brown building on the edge of Ottawa.

Are 3D Printers the Replicators of ST-TNG?

Are the new 3-d printers the replicators we are familiar with from Star Trek: The Next Generation?  Lots of concern that these devices, which can apparently make guns, will end any effort gun control and otherwise let anyone create anything.

But are we there yet?  Can they reproduce something so that the internal chemistry, the internal wiring, whatever is all the same?  More importantly, are these things so cheap that anyone can have them?  I simply do not know.  But I sincerely doubt that anyone can simply get one of these things and pump out tons of guns, bullets or whatever.  Especially when guns and bullets and whatever are easy to  get at a fraction of the price.

Lots of fear-mongering, but until the supply and demand of these things leads to quality/quantity/input/output dynamics that compete with guns, I am more worried about the conventional gun manufacturers and their political power than the new cool devices.

The Implications of Iron Man for IR

Last night, the Spew family saw Iron Man.  We were celebrating a good week and then relief that came with Teen Spew taking the SAT yesterday morning.  It was also marking the beginning of summer--which official begins with movies aspiring to be the block-busters.  Iron Man 2 was meh, but we enjoyed the first one and Avengers very much.  So, we were looking forward to this one, and were not disappointed.  Well, that's not true.  I don't have any principal-agency theory to apply to the movie, as there was no team involved (definitely some shirking along the way) nor really any caveats.  Still, there is plenty of stuff in the movie to over-think beyond the break:

Rebel? No. Insubordinate? Hell Yes.

As much of a fan as I am of the Rebel Alliance on this May the Fourth, I have to say that I have never launched or participated in a rebellion.  However, insubordination is entirely different.  I am reminded of this as I caught this thread at Business Insider (h/t to Doctrine Man).

In the rededit thread cited in the BI piece, folks are telling tales of "the worst thing they said to a senior officer or NCO."  Check it out--heaps of fun.  So, I got to thinking--what was the worst thing I said to someone who was above me in the chain of command?

The one tale that comes to mind is when I was at TTU, and our department was in receivership--which meant that our chair was a Psychologist.  I was the adviser to the undergrad poli sci association, and then wanted to hold a debate in advance of the 2000 election and have a GOP and a Democrat debate each other since we could not get Bush and Gore.  The chair said no, as it would be too controversial.  When I found out about this decision, I went to him and reminded him that we are a political science department, where we do things like talk about politics.  He was not pleased to be reminded of his limitations.

While I have had more than a few chairs that I might wanted to have "corrected," I have had only two that I have been mildly "rebellious" towards: the psychologist and this guy.  I am sure friends can provide examples of what might be the worst thing that I said to either, but my memory is lousy.

Given that academia provides a heaps more unaccounability than the military chain of command, I am sure plenty of folks have good tales of the worst thing they said to someone in administration, right? 

Getting Things Right, Pentagon and Religion edition

I tend to complain a lot about many things, so I need to pay attention when some individual or agency does something right.  So, it looks like the Pentagon is finally grappling with a problem that is been the subject of many spews: the role of religion in the U.S. armed forces. It is a tough line to draw between permitting religious freedom and preventing the military from being the play thing of a particular religious faction.  But given that the military already restricts the freedom of those who choose to join it, it is something that the military can do.  And should do.  That people at the USAF academy have had to hide their non-Christianity is about as un-American as anything I can imagine. 

I hope the academies are taking seriously this new policy.  I am sure the government will get much heat for this, but it is the right thing to do.  The right thing is not always inevitable and often quite difficult.  So congrats to the Pentagon for getting to work on this.

Mac without Cheese

My absolute favorite quote by any political theorist has to be this one from Machiavelli:

"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."  The Prince from here*

* Because I am too lazy to go to school and get my Machiavelli and re-type the passage.

Exactly 600 years ago, Machiavelli diagnosed the essential dilemma of politics.  If you want to change anything, the fans of change will generally be uncertain and unenthusiastic and opposed strongly by those who benefit from the status quo.  This explains so much of today's politics and provides much of the stickiness of path dependence.  It is why I found punctuated equilibria to be an interesting idea (thanks to Stephen Krasner). 

This is why, although I claim to be Liberal, in the sense that history can be progressive rather than just a cycle, I still tend to be surprised when there is change, when progress does occur.  Sure, I can get cocky and claim that some event or politician is now on the right side of history, but that old Machiavelli quote is always bouncing around my head.  Change is really, really, really hard.  Yet it happens.  Which is why politics can be so very interesting albeit frustrating.

Ethnic Politics Uber Alles?

cross posted at Political Violence at a Glance

Canada is taking a strong stand on a humanitarian issue, stepping out way in front of the rest of the world. The issue is Sri Lanka’s human rights abuses, and Canada, often seen as the most mild of countries, is upset that no one else is concerned about Sri Lanka hosting the biennial Commonwealth meeting:

“John Baird, Canada‘s foreign minister, said he was stunned that Colombo was not facing censure for its behaviour. ‘We’re appalled that Sri Lanka seems poised to host [the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting] and to be chair-in-residence of the Commonwealth for two years,’ he told the Guardian.”

Canada is threatening to boycott the meeting. This is especially striking as the current government has been doing everything it can to remind everyone of its British/colonial past, including putting the “Royal” back into the names of the air force and navy: the Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy. So, the prospect of skipping out on a Commonwealth event is a big step for this Canadian government.

Sure, in the past Canada has taken the lead on other humanitarian issues, such as Responsibility to Protect [R2P] and the treaty on landmines. But this particular government, led by Stephen Harper, has been most reluctant to even mention R2P when it engages in efforts that might seem R2P-ish, such as the Libyan conflict in 2011.

Not to dismiss the importance of Sri Lanka’s human rights record, but there may be something more consistent in Canada’s stance here: ethnic politics. Sure, it could just be my cognitive bias based on my previous research stances, but playing up an anti-Sri Lanka stance is a way to appeal to a key voting bloc in Canada: Tamil Canadians. This would not be the first time that Canada has taken a surprising position on this part of the world, as Canada was perhaps the last developed democracy to list the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group. Indeed, a government official recently lamented that decision in front of… a group of Tamil Canadians.

This gets to a larger issue for observers of violent conflict. There are many, many potential causes for individuals, groups, and countries to take as their own, but everyone has finite time and political capital. So, we need to ask why countries, in particular, but also non-governmental actors make particular issues their priorities. My claim has always been that the international issues that often resonate most at home are those places and those sides with which key constituents have ethnic ties. So, I cannot help but notice that Canadian parties have been pandering to the Tamil Canadians for quite some time, and now we see Canada standing alone among the Commonwealth countries in its criticism of Sri Lanka.

Now, if I can only figure out Harper’s obsession with Iran. Anyhow, this Canadian tale matters beyond Canada because it reminds us that even relatively small ethnic groups can shape foreign policy if they occupy key districts and especially if they are willing to swing their vote depending on how much fealty the parties show to the group.

Even More Unaccountable!

I can no longer sing the Assoc Professor blues.  Nope, I have finally learned the secret handshake and will be henceforth dropping all modifiers to the word Professor.  Students can add "bitchin" "gnarly" "damn" "swell" but not assistant or associate.  Those days are over!

What does this mean professionally?

Ignorance is Bliss, Canadian Edition Continued

I posted last week about the strange thing that Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper said about committing sociology as if it were a crime.  Well, this sociologist has produced an incredibly biting, satirical response: that he is a homegrown sociologist.


Probably will not change anything as this government seems impervious to such stuff.  I truly doubt that it will face much of a challenge in the next election, so we are probably stuck with the forces of ignorance for quite some time. 

Of course, Canada is hardly unique in all of this.  Ron Rogowski just published a pretty trenchant piece noting that the problem with political sicence is not that it is not policy relevant but that we are too policy relevant--we find things that are inconvenient truths.  The only time politicians want to hear what we have to say is when we can give them advice on how to win, not on how to govern good.

So, in sum, we social scientists and society in general are just screwed.