Universe On The Couch

It's about time somebody gave an honest view on college today. Harvard, our gem of America, is under fire for academic lameness and the free speech of its leader. College is more expensive than ever, inflating much faster than the CPI or salaries (like housing, energy and healthcare).

University was once the elites only. The wealthy and educated sent their children, meaning sons. Much of the science and scholarship happened their. A gentleman was felt to need an education. Much of this was based on the Catholic Church. After all, the Bible was "The Book."

Early in this century, it was more of a social club for the undrgrads, while the faculty carried the flames of science and the arts. For our private school undergrads, it was a chance to join clubs, play sports and make connections. At least at the private schools. But a neat thing happened in the 1800's when the states started universities, many of high quality. This brought some democracy to the whole thing.

America was propelled to greatness after WWII when university truly became democratic. The returning military went on the GI Bill. Women started to attend in large numbers. We dominated nearly everything that could be called civilization progress. It was a Golden Age of science, medicine and engineering.

But it still was the so-called white collar class difference. But what did it matter? My engineer father made less than some of the union blue-collar guys who never went to college. Factories were booming. America was at work and living well.

And then in the 60's, prosperity brewed unrest. The darker sides of America festered to the surface. Poverty, civil rights, feminism and imperialism. Not to mention free speech. This was a needed phase, but it had adverse effects on universities and education. Since we have been digesting these changes. But like a poor diet, typical of Americans, all the tubes in every orifice and pills will not really heal what ails us. We need to eat right. Period.

The biggest modern issue is the abuse of the idea of democracy. Maybe democracy is bullshit anyways. Do we really live in a democracy anyways? Are "the people" really capable of making intelligent decisions? The Bush election and administration only add to the "no" answer on both counts. This is a social class issue, that dirty concept we avoid. The powers that be would rather have us focus on race and gays. But I digress.

What I am referring to here is the everybody goes to college nonsense. At least half the population is unfit to attend. If you haven't mastered some basic tools, hell some intermediate tools, you don't belong. Read well. Write coherently. Think rationally. Math to at least algebra and geometry. Some understanding of the sciences, history, geography, government, economics,... If you need remedial, then get the hell out. But I suppose I am OK with catching up on education for adults, just not at the better universities.

The students in related issue hardly come prepared. They have poor to no study habits. Their work ethic is a joke. They come for vocational training. Or worse just to party and get laid. Or they just don't know what else to do. The pre-BabyBoomers probably why better educated graduating high school than the average college grad today. The funny thing is, the brighter kids are so advanced, way beyond the brightest 25 years ago.

The faculty are to a large extent liberal BabyBoomers of the 60's, now tenured. This worldview is orthodox and rigid now. Socialism is a proven disaster. Communism a fantasy. Think commune. Many of the teachers are more interested in a personal agenda than a search for truth. They are often intolerant of differing viewpoints. I got nailed to a B once in a lit class where I was critical of the book. Bitch. Only now out of the fishbowl can I see the water was biased. But it sure caused some heated discussions with the folks on breaks.

Affirmative action has degraded our standards too. Much of the benefits go to kids who have all the advantages and background of their "previliged" white brethren. One-eighth Amerind? Please. So a more mediocre group in university. I had to laugh when in about 1987 TV had a thing where a white kid got a spot of an Asian at Berkeley, the latter with better grades and test scores. What a crock. I was as smart as anyone, but I didn't apply myself in high school. So I went to a good public U. I didn't deserve Berkeley, Stanford or Yale.

Feminism has really degraded University life. This is the main water of University life. Even back in my day, the wonderful 1980's. The whole premise has one good point and two bullshit ones. Good is that women get a chance to play if they choose. Male privilige and power are bullshit, but another topic. The taking the "we're oppressed just like blacks" is laughable at best. At the core is this sexism against males. But whatever the views, it has bred an intolerance and prejudice on our campuses.

Then there is this prejudice against white European males. Well, that's who did most of the science, art and scholarship. Deal with it. Sure, study other cultures and such, but our culture is founded on the white guy's brainwork. Plato had more to say than Fredian. The Color Purple is not a classic like Hamlet.

We see males exiting the university. This is of concern. Is it that hostile to males in process or content? I shudder to think the underclass black male is the canary in the coalmine of all males in America. Or maybe college is increasingly irrelevant. Skills can be learned in many ways and all the changes continually open up opportunities not well circumscribed by standardization. In the 80's you needed much education to practive medicine, as you still do. But computers were something a bright person could do well without college. Now that is less true.

Universities need to re-define themselves again. I say truth at all costs. This dedication and work will gave society so many benefits, as it always has. Vocational training and market motives should be quite secondary. But I am probably dreaming. Truth and honesty are sins in modern America. Mammon is our god. Dammit.

After WW

Two recent issues have been in the news regarding Harvard, the nature of the experience and the fire over its boss. Harvard sits in the American consciousness as the Mecca of universities. While there are many universities that could legitimately say they are equal or better, Harvard sticks out in the American mind. Nobody can one-up you if you graduated Harvard. Not to leave anyone out, the other elites include Yale, Princeton, MIT, Michigan, Berkeley, Stanford and University of Chicago.

As far as being the "best" is concerned, there are some issues to explore. First, best at what? Different schools have their strengths and weaknesses. Second, best for whom? Certain styles and gestalts of a place can be a factor. The liberal elite climate of Harvard may put off the best and brightest from conservative middle-class America. Third is the geography itself. This has a certain social aspect and well as physical. Some do better in a smaller college town (Iowa or Davis). Others in a smaller city, perhaps the state capitol (Austin or Madison). Others to live in the big city (Columbia or UCLA). Climate is also a factor.

All those points aside, college is individual. Two people can have quite different experiences at the same school in the same major. How hard did you really study? Was it just the grade or did you seek to learn? Any outside reading at that incredible library? Who did you hang out with? Did you just get drunk and high? Any activities like student government, sports or arts? Did you check out the funky movies and music and bookstores?

So now let me expound on Harvard itself. I never went. Or to anything so elite. I was public Cowtown university. But I have dated two women from Harvard. One is an MD, the other a PhD psychologist. One is Indian, the other California blonde. Both share the same view. They say it is not the place of genius and brilliance. People are very bright and accomplished, which is a given. No alum status just to be a doctor or millionaire lawyer. You must do something grand to impress. Perhaps climbing Everest or sailing solo to Hawaii. Grades are a joke as it is nearly impossible to get lower than a B. It was a very stimulating place to be but lacked in rigor. There are too many other important things to do.

So, like all universities, its what you make of it. You certainly have a status calling card. You can make connections too. If I was in high school again and wanted to really live in the elite big money, Harvard would be a great place. I would have had to study, which I did not at all, to get the grades. Maybe get a sports in, something I would have not gotten at the Big Ten, Pac Ten or Big Twelve. Jock status would make up for middle class. Meet friends of the elite. Then onto banking or such with my old boy's network. Maybe marry a pretty debutante with wealthy dad. Whatever.

Now there is some crap about it being an elite school. Of course it is. It is private and damn expensive. Universities were social clubs one-hundred years ago for the elite to mix and even mate. If it is merit, then it is grades and test scores that determine admission. And the fact is that the more affluent do better here. They clearly do have better motivation and parental support. Their schools are likely much better. Homes likely have more books and they have more experiences such as travel and cultural events. They may even be genetically smarter. The cream tends to rise to the top. So deal with it.

The comments by its leader are another issue, dealing with academic freedom and pursuit of truth rather than PC nonsense.

So in conclusion, Harvard and its ilk are great universities and have much to offer. They are for the elites and so be it. America is blessed with many quality schools, many of them public and much less expensive. In the end it depends on the student. I had a great education at my Cow U. I could have made it much better in fact. I was not Harvard material by choice. My testosterone was much more important and I did not study in high school. As such I did not deserve to go. I judged private university to be too expensive anyways. To say I graduated Harvard would be cool, but that's just ego. Whatever.

In the stream of low-carbohydrate diets, there have been four main groups. The first is the very low-carbohydrate diets. These are in books by Atkins, Protein Power, and others. The idea is to go into ketosis due to nearly no carbs to burn. The problem is that they are hard to stay on. Criticism also comes form the questionable health effects of ketosis, inadequate produce and its benefits and the high level of saturated fats.

The second group is the milder forms per Schwarzbein, Jay Robb, Sugar Busters and so on. He ketosis is avoided and they are easier to follow. Healthy fruits and vegetables are also encouraged.

The third is the Zone and its clones. Talk about hard to follow. What a rigid pain in the ass. The 40-30-30 thing is difficult to follow. Five meals a day is tough too. Our culture eats big meals fairly often. I suppose taking a laptop and a cooler everywhere is the solution.

Fourth and final is the Paleolithic diet. This is based on what we evolved eating. For millions of years we ate a certain diet and only in the past twelve thousand years or less have we changed from this, a short period of time in evolutionary scale. For many of us Europeans, this may be two thousand years or less. We evolved to thrive on this diet. Any variation from it is at our own risk.

The diet is essentially three things. First drink only water. Second, eat plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables. The rule is if you can't pick and eat it as is, it isn't included. Berries and lettuce are good. Skip potatoes, yams, corn and other starchy plants. Finally eat meat of any animal. Beef, chicken, fish, shrimp,... Pretty simple. It gets more involved and different authors have their own take on it. My best references are "The Paleo Diet" by Cordain and "Neanderthin" by Audette. They differ on points, but are well-researched and excellent starting points.

The benefits are many. It has not been given a real double-blind test, but that would be fascinating. Good measures of a study would be blood lipids, blood sugar, glycosolated hemoglobin, serum insulin, body weight, body fat percentage, blood pressure, bone density, visual acuity, reaction time, treadmill tests, muscular strength and skin thickness. Ideal would be to put it head to head with a control no change US diet, Atkins, AHA and Mediterranean diets.

I have seen plenty of reader anecdotes in many places supporting this diet. It certainly makes scientific sense. Doctors have documented clinical cases showing improvements too. My own personal experience was a two month period where I lost twenty pounds of fat with no adverse effects in two months, following a half-assed version with a little grain and lots of cheese. Not to mention weekly chips and beer on weekends. I'm slowly moving this paleo way since the first of the year. And I mean slowly. So far have nixed sugars, trans fats, caffeine and alcohol step-by-step. And injuries have limited exercise some. Yet I feel much better and have lsot 12# already.