McCain grijpt naast de titel..
Polderen met kwaliteit
Een kritische beschouwing van het voorgestelde accreditatiestelsel.
met Remie Bolte
Gesluierd in beleidsspecialistische taal werd onlangs één van de langsverwachte wijzigingen in het Nederlands hogeronderwijs gepresenteerd, dat van het accreditatiestelsel. “Het [voorstel] biedt onafhankelijke, externe borging en stevige kwaliteitszorg zonder dat er sprake is van bureaucratische invuloefeningen”, aldus minister Plasterk in zijn aankondiging eerder dit jaar (TK 31288, nr. 21). Wie het debat over kwaliteitszorg in het hogeronderwijs een beetje heeft gevolgd moet het voorstel met plezier gelezen hebben. Ze bewijst dat het poldermodel zijn kracht nog niet verloren heeft.Introductie: Het Hoogste Goed
Voor hen die minder bekend zijn met het onderwerp volgt hier een korte introductie. Accreditatie is het mechanisme waarmee de kwaliteit van het hogeronderwijs moet worden gegarandeerd. Het is te vergelijken met een keurmerk: een opleiding moet een accreditatie aanvragen, en krijgen toegekend, om onderwijs te mogen aanbieden aan studenten. Een verleende accreditatie is geldig voor zes jaar. Wordt een opleiding bij de accreditatieaanvraag ondermaats bevonden dan wordt in principe de geldkraan dichtgedraaid, een studentenstop ingevoerd en de facto de boel opgedoekt.
Dit belangrijke mechanisme, accreditatie, moet van de minister op de schop. In zijn ‘strategische agenda’ – getiteld Het Hoogste Goed – krijgt deze hervorming een belangrijke plaats toebedeeld (TK 31288, nr.1). Dat het hogeronderwijs op den duur onderworpen zou worden aan een nieuw systeem van accreditatie werd al snel duidelijk na de introductie van het accreditatiestelsel in 2002. Sinds het begin klagen bestuurders van hogeschool en universiteit over de administratieve last van het accreditatieproces.
Protocol zonder oefening: de kritiek
In het huidige accreditatiestelsel wordt elke opleiding op HBO- en WO-niveau onder de loep genomen, zowel wat betreft het proces van kwaliteitszorg (proces audit; denk aan onderwijsevaluaties en functioneringsgesprekken) als de bereikte resultaten van de opleiding (product audit; denk aan slagingsrendementen en uitvalpercentages). De onderwijsinstellingen stellen dat dit veel dubbel werk oplevert omdat ‘het proces’ elke keer opnieuw wordt beoordeeld. Dat is geldverslindend en houdt docenten van hun werk. Een nieuw stelsel van ‘volledige instellingsaccreditatie’ zou hier een einde aan maken, omdat – de naam zegt het al – dan de gehele onderwijsinstelling zou worden beoordeeld in plaats van elke opleiding op zich. Of dat zo is, is echter de vraag.
De ‘proces audit’ levert in de praktijk veel dubbel werk op, maar dit komt vooral door het ontbreken van een gestructureerd kwaliteitszorgsysteem bij het gros van de instellingen. Veel van de gevraagde documenten moeten nu nog door docenten worden geproduceerd wanneer de opleiding wordt geaccrediteerd. Dit levert inderdaad een administratieve lastenverzwaring op. Tegelijkertijd toont het aan dat deze documenten nog niet aanwezig waren. Dit komt doordat het instellingsbrede kwaliteitszorgsysteem niet optimaal functioneert, of simpelweg ontbreekt. Een overgang naar instellingsaccreditatie zou dit gebrek niet verhelpen, maar verbloemen.
Vergelijk het met een bedrijf waar alle protocollen voor brandveiligheid in de kast staan, maar waar nooit een brandoefening wordt gehouden. In geval van brand zijn het niet de ordners die levens redden (proces), maar goed geïnstrueerde mensen en genomen veiligheidsmaatregelen (product). Daarnaast zouden de administratieve lasten in de tweede accreditatieronde al een stuk lichter moeten zijn. Veel van de benodigde documenten bestaan inmiddels en hoeven alleen te worden bijgewerkt aan de huidige situatie.
Voor sommige belanghebbenden lijkt het idee van volledige instellingsaccreditatie een doemscenario. Ten eerste vindt er alleen een proces-audit plaats: het beleid ten aanzien van de kwaliteitszorg wordt gecontroleerd maar er is geen controle van de praktijk. Dat degradeert het accreditatieproces tot een papieren exercitie waarbij de terugkoppeling naar de werkvloer zoek is. Het tweede bezwaar is de vrees voor de ‘afwijzingsdrempel’. De minister zal wel twee keer nadenken eer hij de bekostiging van een volledige instelling intrekt. Daardoor verliest het systeem zijn spreekwoordelijke tanden. Een systeem met enkel een volledige instellingsaccreditatie om de 6 jaar, zoals de hogeschool- en universiteitsbestuurders graag zouden zien, lijkt dus een slechte waarborg voor de kwaliteit.
Het compromis: verdiend vertrouwen
Wat is dan het alternatief? Enkele jaren polderen en een wisseling van de wacht tussen VVD en PvdA levert het volgende compromis op: het systeem van opleidingsaccreditatie blijft bestaan, maar wordt versterkt met een systeem van ‘verdiend vertrouwen’. Instellingen kunnen accreditatie op instellingsniveau aanvragen. Indien deze positief wordt beoordeeld, dan is er sprake van verdiend vertrouwen en geldt er voortaan een lichtere accreditatie voor opleidingen aan deze instelling. Het procesgedeelte wordt dan volledig overgeslagen, alleen het resultaat (product) wordt beoordeeld. Voordat de instellingsaccreditatie heeft plaatsgevonden, of indien een aanvraag negatief is beoordeeld, zal het (uitgebreid) accreditatiekader voor opleidingen worden gehanteerd conform de huidige praktijk.
Het compromis lijkt in eerste instantie een handreiking naar alle partijen. De instellingen wordt lastenverlichting in het vooruitzicht gesteld, studenten zien de beoordeling op opleidingsniveau gewaarborgd. Toch blijven er nog een paar vragen over waarvoor de minister vóór de invoering van het nieuwe stelsel een oplossing moet vinden. Het gevaar van dit systeem is dat proces en product audit niet meer aan elkaar gekoppeld worden. Vinden de beleidsdoelstellingen en de beoogde verbeterpunten ook hun weerslag in het resultaat? Het beoordelen van een opleiding is de enige plek waar beleid en resultaat samen komen, daar zal dus een toets moeten plaatsvinden. Ook blijft de periode van 6 jaar fors, zeker omdat sommige instellingen haast jaarlijks de curricula van hun opleidingen veranderen om in te springen op nieuwe maatschappelijke of pedagogische ontwikkelingen. Een frequente controle op kwaliteit binnen die periode, wellicht door middel van een steekproef, lijkt geen overbodige luxe. Resteert de drempel van afwijzing. Opleidingen met duizenden studenten worden niet snel afgekeurd. Dit is niet vanwege het (gebrek aan) kwaliteit maar vanwege de chaos die afkeuring zou opleveren. Naast het afkeuren van opleidingen moet de minister nog andere middelen vinden om instellingen te stimuleren de kwaliteit van hun opleidingen te verbeteren.
(Durven) leren uit ervaring
Zoals reeds in de openingsparagraaf wordt gesteld straalt het voorstel vooral gepolder uit. Compromissen zijn echter niet altijd het beste antwoord op een ingewikkeld probleem. Eén van de nadelen van dit compromis is dat het teveel uitgaat van het huidige systeem. Wat we missen is vernieuwing die meer omhelst dan een naamswijziging. In dat kader doen we graag enkele voorstellen. Hierbij putten we deels uit onze ervaring in de praktijk van accreditatie en deels uit de deelname van één van ons aan een delegatie die in 2006, onder leiding van het ministerie van OCW, modelland Engeland een bezoek aandeed om te leren van hun accreditatiestelsel.
Om met dat bezoek te beginnen: terugblikkend steekt er één ding boven alle ervaringen uit: wat voor een stelsel je hebt maakt niet zo gek veel uit, dát er een systeem is, houdt mensen scherp; en maakt dat onderwijsinstellingen zich zullen inspannen voor kwaliteitszorg. Voorts is het belangrijk om in het achterhoofd te houden waarop een accreditatiebesluit is gebaseerd. In Nederland is dat een ‘zelfevaluatie’, door medewerkers van de opleiding zelf geschreven, en een ‘visitatie’ (bezoek) aan de opleiding door een onafhankelijke accreditatiecommissie van inhoudelijk (vak)specialisten. Onze eigen ervaring met het schrijven van een zelfevaluatie, met het bijwonen van de visitatie en het spreken met de accreditatiecommissie is dat er een hele boel wordt opgeschreven en verteld, maar dat het voor de accreditatiecommissie een onmogelijke opgave is om te beoordelen wat waar is en wat wordt overdreven (of achtergehouden). Er van uitgaand dat geen enkele opleiding zo fatalistisch is om zich op papier onvoldoende te presenteren, en de gevallen van zichtbare wanorde en negatieve media-aandacht weglatend (gevallen die ook zonder een visitatie wel waren opgevallen), wil dat zeggen dat een visitatiecommissie niet kán beoordelen of een opleiding precies voldoet aan de eisen voor accreditatie.
Het is dus zaak te bedenken wie dat wél kan beoordelen. Allereerst zijn dat naar onze mening de studenten van de opleiding. In Engeland geeft men vorm aan deze gedachte door naast het zelfevaluatierapport een rapport te leggen dat door studenten is opgesteld. Beiden worden door de accreditatiecommissie gelezen. Een andere groep die in Engeland toezicht houdt zijn peers; vakgenoten die ‘bij de buren’ meekijken. Op elke opleiding in Engeland draaien, in de examencommissie, enkele externe wetenschappers mee (inhoudelijk verwant aan de opleiding, maar verbonden aan een andere onderwijsinstelling). Hun enige taak: jaarlijks een documentje ondertekenen waarin ze beamen dat alles naar behoren verloopt. Dat doen ze dan ook meestal… maar soms niet. In die gevallen staat de boel op stelten, dan is er écht wat mis en wordt er ingegrepen.
Laat, tot slot, duidelijk zijn dat we ons weinig zorgen maken over het voortbestaan van instellingen, opleidingen en de Nederlandse kwaliteitszorg. We moeten echter niet verbloemen dat we voor een belangrijke keuze staan. Wordt het een compromis van gedegen polderwerk, of nemen we met degelijkheid geen genoegen, grijpen we de kans voor ware vernieuwing? Aan de politiek ligt de keuze voor die wij al hebben gemaakt:
“The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all” – Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 - 1964).
Niet leiden maar afleiden
Hoewel ik er nooit in geloofde, wordt het me tijdens mijn verblijf in Berkeley steeds duidelijker dat er iets is dat Europeanen met elkaar delen. Zijn het verheven waarden als tolerantie en verdraagzaamheid? Of is het platte afkeer van Amerikaanse fakeheid, hoogmoed en patriotisme? Misschien is het juist onze verdeeldheid en verscheidenheid: de tachtig talen, onze geschiedenis van strijd, nijd en de vele oorlogen. Wat het ook moge verklaren, het resultaat is een gedeeld kader.
Ik merk het in de dagelijkse omgang met studenten en staf. Ik voel het in de ongeschreven normen van de interactie – kijk je iemand aan of niet; op welke afstand blijf je staan; groet je met kus, hand of handgebaar. Contact met Europeanen gaat gemakkelijk en gesmeerd. Praten met Amerikanen leidt (na 4 maanden!) nog regelmatig tot onbegrip, ongemak en – gelukkig – tot hilariteit.
Nu de vraag voorligt wie het gezicht van Europa moet worden, doe ik graag de volgende suggesties voor het smeden van ons boegbeeld. 1. Geen consensus. Consensus leidt tot concessies en tot ‘veilige keuzes’. ‘Degelijke’ en/of ‘betrouwbare’ kandidaten moeten gemeden worden; die twee woorden staan synoniem voor karakterloos. 2. Kleurrijke kandidaat. Mits aan de eerste suggestie gehoor wordt gegeven, heeft deze suggestie inhoud: geen excuustruus of ‘wereldburger’, maar iemand met een roerig verleden, wilde ervaring, een kleurrijk leven. 3. Brood en spelen: de enige oplossing voor de politieke stroperigheid en publieke onderbuikgevoelens. Een leider moet niet leiden, maar afleiden. Jaloersmakend extravert, jeukend irritant of stuitent arrogant – alles beter dan onopvallend.
Schieten op Chicago
Via een mede-student belandde ik op een website van de University of Chicago, waar je kunt participeren aan een sociaal-psychologisch experiment. Ik vond het erg interessant, dus raad het van harte aan: hierr.
Omdat de uitleg nogal beroerd was, hier een aantal opmerkingen bij de test:
1. De laadtijd, op het begin, is nogal lang. Heb geduld.
2. Je krijgt een serie foto's te zien. Bedoeling is om snel te reageren.
3. Een goede beslissing leidt tot positieve punten, een verkeerde tot minpunten.
4. Bij het bekijken van de eindresultaten gaat het om het verschil tussen resultaat 1 en 3 en dat tussen 2 en 4.
Activism update
During Spring Break, our tree-sitter stepped down. From the tree, that is. But not long after, a new protest arose. This protest has to do with the appointment of the new UC President: current chancellor of the University of Texas Mark Yudof. At first, his appointment was celebrated and his persona appraised – Yudof is a distinguished researcher and fits the UC profile in his preoccupation with issues such as free speech and gender discrimination. Controversy arose when the financial aspects of his appointment were made public: Yudof will be earning $828,084 annually in wage and compensations. In the words of Richard Blum, chair of the Board of Regents who appointed him: “He's expensive, but he's worth it”. Others, however, have not been so generous. The view of the critics is best summarized by the following cartoon.
Meanwhile, (the city of) Berkeley witnesses another form of protest. Yesterday a local software company announced it will relocate outside of the city as a protest against the Berkeley police department (and, consequently, the city’s mayor). The police, the company’s CEO argues, is failing to guarantee safety and orderliness in downtown Berkeley as too large a share of the department’s officers are caught up dealing with yet another protest: that of the anti-war protesters, surrounding the US Marine recruitment center. The mayor’s decision to allow these protesters the space and time to voice their opinion, it is argued, has been detrimental to the business climate – eventually resulting in the company’s drastic step.
At our house, we decided to have a discussion session of our own regarding the Fitna-movie release. We watched the movie in a quite diverse group of people (i.e. of Iranian, German, Chinese, American and of course Dutch origin), but were unified in our perception of the movie: we all accepted the right of someone, anyone, to make a movie like this and we all agreed that it probably wouldn’t be very beneficial to the ‘problems’ Wilders is addressing. We exchanged opinions, rather, on issues such as the possible differences, when it comes to freedom of speech, between politician and civilians; and the friction between accepting dominant ideology and respecting dissent. All in all an enlightening experience for me to get a glance of what other people think of the things that I accept as ‘normal’. Now the waiting is for a translation of Rita’s maiden speech to appear online, so we can complete the ‘introduction to Dutch politics’.
Revival of activism?
This morning, as I was making my way to the library through the crowded Sproul plaza, I encountered a large group of protesters. What looked like high school students and their teachers were passionately demonstrating against the SAT – the Scholastic Aptitude Test which determines admission for most American colleges. With chants like “Education not segregation / Integration not war” and the catchy “Hey hey / Hey ho / The SAT / has got to go”, they were energetically conveying the message: SAT measures privilege, not merit (as I read on a slightly more subtle sign one of the students was holding). I must admit, after having studied cultural reproduction theory for weeks, I enjoyed seeing Bourdieu’s theory [i] spelled out on a protest sign.
Returning home from the library I ran into yet another group of protesters: a gathering of Cal students who were holding speeches about the same topic that bothered the high school students. “Reverse the drop of underrepresented minority enrollment at UC Berkeley”, was their message. A police officer watched them from a distance, while his animal companion (“Morgan, a member of the UCPD Explosive detection K-9 Team” – reads the Collectable Trading Card which the officer handed me) entertained some bystanders.
Meanwhile, a hundred yards away, his/their colleagues were busy guarding the most recent ‘tree-site’ which has been ‘occupied’ by a tree-sitter two weeks ago. While, at the other end of campus several students have been ‘tree-sitting’ a giant Oak tree since August to prevent it from being cut down [ii], the most recent tree-sitter has a quite different motive. A masked guy who calls himself ‘Fresh’ proclaims to have occupied the tree to get attention for the university’s contract with BP oil, a contract which allegedly threatens UC Berkeley’s academic integrity [iii].
Ever since, the site has been guarded 24/7 by two police officers. The official story, as explained to me by a well-informed fellow student, is that the police are there to make sure that the protester is safe. At the same time – and perhaps the real reason for their presence – the police prevents ‘accomplices’ to provide the tree-sitter with water and food. (Last week two persons were arrested under charges of ‘suspicion of obstructing an officer’ after having flung bottles of water into the tree. [iv]) This ‘starvation strategy’ has yet to pay off. Up until now, the only effect seems to be just what the protester desired: attention. Two officers for himself, all the time. As I stroll home, stepping over the ‘Free Palestine’ stickers on the pavement, I find myself wondering what they talk about at night...
--------------------
[i] See, e.g. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QyTdmDIlKxwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA351&dq=bourdieu+forms+capital&ots=gNSS_aLnNz&sig=gSoXfcyH1pZC6Pzh2y3dAn6XPI4#PPA352,M1.
[ii] Both protest sites have been covered in great detail through youtube videos. For a look on the 'original' site, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiRY_A4E9Co&feature=related. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FZwUcoejWI&feature=related for some more spectacular (i.e. 'artistic') images. Here's some live action footage of the police's attempt to remove 'Fresh': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ZdNA36ulI. And the 'accomplice' throwing water is shown to be arrested here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AZB396-_CU&feature=related.
[iii] See http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/24/60/ for an essay on the subject.
[iv] See http://www.dailycal.org/article/100803/two_arrested_after_rally_for_tree-sitter for the local news coverage.
May the future be orange!
I’ve heard professors at Berkeley talk about Europe and Asia; Germany and Japan are my Economics professor’s favorite ‘other countries’, but I have never heard anyone speak of internationalization. While that of course may simply be the result of the fact that I don’t get to speak enough people, I believe otherwise. It is my educated guess that (the concern for) internationalization is a very European idiosyncrasy.
This is not to say that American academics are unaware of the world outside of their country or of phenomena that we like to capture by the word ‘globalization’. What I’m saying is that their interest in these phenomena seems to be focused mainly on topics such as (economic) outsourcing and environmental issues, not on academic cooperation and mobility. Not because they do not care, but simply because they do not have to worry: America already attracts the most ambitious students and most highly regarded scholars.
While I find myself surprised, from time to time, when I hear people around me speak Norwegian / Farsi / Serbo-Croatian or Cantonese and while I’m still not used to the sight of 80 Asians in my (Economics) class of 100, I seem to be the only one who notices. Both for Berkeley students and professors, international diversity seems to be nothing novel. Furthermore, when the public relations office boasts “Berkeley’s rich diversity” or when the Chancellor declares Berkeley’s “mission to support diversity, equity and inclusion” (preferably when funding cuts are looming), they are referring to ethnic minorities within the U.S. rather than to foreign students and scholars.
For Dutch higher education, however, internationalization is still mainly unclaimed territory. While our students are increasingly spending a semester abroad and while our researchers are relatively successful in obtaining European research grants (we did great in the first round of the ERC Starting Grand competition) and even though we offer the highest number of English programmes in Europe (excluding the UK), we do a poor job of attracting foreign students: the percentage of foreign students of the total student population in the Netherlands is a mere 5.6% compared to the European average of 7.2% and top scores of 9.2% in Sweden and 11,5% in Germany (Nuffic, Mobility Key Figures 2007). A part of the explanation we will find in our strict immigration policies and relatively high tuition fees (especially for non-Europeans), a part we must perhaps look for in our academic culture.
I will conclude with my own experiences of studying abroad. What, I think, stands out is the ease by which I have settled here in Berkeley. Not through the help of some ‘internationalization’ agency or the warm guidance of a ‘foreign student councilor’, but simply because everyone seems to accept my presence as a natural fact. One of my clearest memories is that of a mother crying, long and intense, as she was struggling to say goodbye to her son, who was about to start his studies here at Berkeley. An American mother, I should add, of an American student. It was this sight which made me realize that I am not alone here. There are very few – very few – local students here; undergraduate and graduate students alike come to study at Berkeley from every corner of the country. And while a Dutch student at the University of Amsterdam might still spend most of his time with his Amersfoort friends, or even travel to Middelburg over the weekend to visit her parents (and do her laundry), there is no way a Berkeley student would still hang out with his friends in Wisconsin, Madison, Miami, Florida or New York City, New York. The logical consequence: it is less of a challenge to ‘build up a new life’ when everyone around you is doing the same thing.
I believe the opposite is true of the Netherlands. If my account holds ground, it explains the complexity of getting more international students to the Netherlands, for socio-cultural factors underlying our countries’ unattractiveness to foreign students are unlikely to have a quick and easy solution. Let this not lead to negativity. Just like it was the ambition and persistence of one professor at the University of Amsterdam that led to the start of an exchange with UC Berkeley’s Sociology department, the ambition and effort of good people, when well guided by their institutions, can bring us much more. Add to that the great examples (‘best practices’) that we find in our country’s Art Schools and let us conclude that ‘the future is bright’ indeed and, with some effort, it will be orange.
Sofa activism
Never been a great fan of Faithless, but then again I never really listened to their lyrics either. Well, I did today and I can't say that I didn't appreciate what I heard. While perhaps less relevant than when released in early 2004, to me this song still gives a fairly harsh but valid message. So hereunder you find the lyrics of the song that was playing on my iPod today: Mass Destruction. Above, the music video. Enjoy!
----
My dad came into my room holding his hat,
I knew he was leaving,
He sat on my bed told me some facts. Son,
I have a duty, calling on me.
You and your sister - be brave my little soldier.
And don't forget all I told you.
You're the mister of the house now remember this,
And when you wake up in the morning give your momma a kiss.
Then I had to say goodbye,
In the morning woke momma with a kiss on each eyelid.
Even though I'm only a kid,
Certain things can't be hid.
Momma grabbed me,
Held me like I was made of gold,
But left her inner stories untold.
I said, momma it will be alright,
When daddy comes home, tonight.
Whether long range weapon or suicide bomber,
A wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction.
Whether the Soaraway Sun or BBC 1,
Misinformation is a weapon of mass destruct.
You could be Caucasian or a poor Asian,
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction.
Whether inflation or globalization,
Fear is a weapon of mass destruction.
Whether Halliburton, Enron or anyone,
Greed is a weapon of mass destruction.
We need to find courage, overcome,
Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction.
The skin under my chin is exploding again.
I'm getting stress from some other children,
I'm holding it in.
We're taking sides like a politician.
And if I get friction we get to fighting.
I'll defend my dad he's the best of all men,
and whatever he's doing he's doing the right thing.
It's frightening, but it makes me mad,
Why do all of these people seem to hate my dad?
And if that ain't enough now i get these spots.
I go to sleep every night with my stomache in knots.
And what's more, i can hear momma next door,
Explore the radio for reports of war.
And all we ever seem to do is hide the tears.
Seems like daddy's been gone for years.
But he was right, now i'm geared up for the fight,
and he would be proud of me.
If my daddy came home tonight.
My story stops here, lets be clear.
This scenario is happening everywhere.
And you ain't going to nirvana or far-vana,
you're coming right back here to live out your karma.
With even more drama than previously, seriously.
Just how many centuries have we been,
waiting for someone else to make us free?
And we refuse to see,
that people overseas suffer just like we:
Bad leadership and ego's unfettered and free,
Who feed on the people they're supposed to lead.
I don't need good people to pray and wait,
For the lord to make it all straight.
There's only now, do it right,
'Cos I don't want your daddy, leaving home tonight.
Election Day from up close
Yesterday I had the opportunity to experience the American Presidential Primary Elections from very close by. Very close, since one of the approx. 50 polling stations in Berkeley was located in my house. In the living room, to be exact. (If you look close, you can see the Alpha Chi Sigma mark on the porch steps and on banners in the living room.) Since the number of voters wasn’t that high, I had plenty of time to talk to the volunteers in charge of the polling process (‘poll workers’) and took a look for myself at the polling equipment and procedures. Of course I also did my part in maintaining order and efficiency (I brought them coffee) and when the polling station closed, I joined my housemates for long hours of watching voting outcomes on television. Let me share with you some of the peculiarities that I came across.
One of the first things I noticed at our polling station was the special box designated for ‘provisional’ votes. This box embodies a complicated set of regulations (barriers, if you ask me) for the polling process. First, voters have to register in order to be able to cast their vote [i]. This can be problematic since registration is state-based; therefore you have to vote in the state where you have been registered. While it might be just a minor inconvenience (for a large group of people; estimated around 20% of votes cast in California were sent in by mail), yesterday’s election showed another disadvantage of the system: time-lag. Voting by mail was opened weeks earlier than voting at the polling station. This had a great impact on California: 10% of Democratic votes were cast on John Edwards, a candidate who stepped out of the race days before Election Day.
Of course there are always people who forget to mail in their votes. Add to that the number of people who failed to show a valid identification at the polling station, the people who registered just before the deadline and those who for another reason did not show up on the list of eligible voters. In all those instances, people were allowed to vote, but their ballot was put in the provisional box. By estimation of the poll workers, about 50% of votes cast that day, disappeared in that box. I think I can easily state that, together with the great turnout, these regulations lay at the core of the problems that polling stations faced yesterday: on Stanford campus, there were huge lines of people waiting as the polling station ran out of ballots; we had people knocking on the door hours after ‘our station’ had been closed who thought to have finally found a place where they could vote; and of course it takes a lot of work to thoroughly check the great number of provisional votes.
Another thing that I didn’t know about before yesterday was that every state adds to the ballot a number of state-specific propositions for people to vote on. Effectively, together with picking their favorite presidential candidate, voting day featured several hundreds of referenda nationwide. In California these propositions concerned topics ranging from allowing native Americans to open new casino’s (56% voted YES) to reducing the funding of community colleges (58% voted NO).
A third peculiarity that I want to merely touch upon is the voting system’s decentralization. As we already saw in Iowa, there is – first – a distinction between states that have primaries and those that have caucuses. A second distinction is that between states which hold Democratic or Republican elections, or both. Then there are states with a winner-takes-all system and those without, states with binding elections and those without, states which allow for Democrats to vote for Republican candidates (and vice versa) and states who do not.
One last thing we should keep in mind: it’s not the total number of votes that count. What matters is the number of counties won. The number of counties won, determine the number of delegates that a candidate has ‘won’. I’ve put the word won between apostrophes, as only some of every state’s delegates will be voting for the candidate that the people voted for. A number of delegates – called superdelegates – have the opportunity to decide for themselves who to vote for. As these superdelegates make up approx. 20% of all delegates (796 out of a total of 4049), it is not an easy job to predict the outcome just yet [ii].
I can however, give you the results of the Democratic votes cast in our house. Barack Obama: 140; Hillary Rodham Clinton: 70 (and approx. another 200 unidentified votes in the provisional box). Altogether a 2-1 victory for Obama and a pretty accurate opposite of the state-wide results. I guess Berkeley is a little different...
--------------------
[i] Although I won’t go into it much further, it is important to know that registration excludes from voting all Americans who a) are in jail or serving parole (approx. 2.3% of the population and 10% of all young African-Americans men); b) in many states, that have been convicted and served time for specific felonies (an estimated total of 5.3 million potential voters); c) that have been found to be mentally incapable to vote by a court of law. See, for more information here and here.
[ii] For an extensive list, look here.
Straight from my room
Hallelujah! Today, Manuel and I cleaned our room and switched our desks - effectively giving me a good and light (as in: adjacent to the window) workspace. Now that the cleaning is done, I can give you a view of the room and of the roof (at Robbie's request).
Check out the pictures and movie right here.
P.S. No reactions on my previous post. Too long? Too many 9-letter words? Or was it gibberish after all?
Berkeley Luxory
Lately I've been facing some problems. Luxury problems, that is. The first one is that I find it problematic to pick for myself a number of courses that I'd like to follow additionally to the 'core' that I've already chosen - and have been accepted to (Labor Economics, Reich; Social Stratification, Lucas; Quantitative Methods, Goodman).
Secondly, I've been coming up with a lot of research questions that I'd like to pursue. Writing a paper on the Left Behind series has fueled my interest for American Christian fundamentalism and, moreover, the question why some religious ideas (e.g. Apocalyptical and dispensationalist beliefs) have such solid grounds in the US while they are practically non-existent in Europe. (Mail me if you want to take a look at the paper or hear more about the subject). All students that I’ve talked about it so far, that knew the books, didn’t believe a word though. Just my luck to be ‘stuck’ in the most liberal town of the US!
Another research idea emerged out of a conversation that I had over dinner with a friend, who is a psychology graduate student here at Berkeley. We came to talk about IQ-tests and she told me about a researcher, James R. Flynn, who showed that IQ-test scores all over the world show a very constant and linear growth. Instead of proclaiming that humans have over the years become smarter, Flynn argues that as society grows more complex, more abstract thinking is required of us – a way of thinking that is rewarded high scores in IQ tests. Accordingly, yearly IQ test results are corrected for this ‘Flynn-effect’.
While this seemed to me as a valid line of reasoning, I did not accept it at face value. Didn’t, for example, our educational system get more and more practically oriented – focused on skills rather than knowledge; on practical use rather than thorough understanding? The example that I have in mind concerns how I was taught mathematics in secondary school. While my father could still give you mathematical proof of most propositions that he had to understand in his school years, when I attended school I just had to take the formulas for granted and ‘learn to apply’ them (actually, for my school exams, I was even given a card with all the formulas to use with my calculator). But even though my view on these things might be biased through my ‘Tweede Fase’ education, are there no simpler explanations for the Flynn-effect?
What comes to mind is the following: isn’t it so that people do better on tests the 2nd time than the 1st? Isn’t that why people practice before making? Add to that the fact that tests have come to play a great role in both educational as in the labor market settings. From assessments as part of the job application procedure and Graduate Record Examinations for grad school entry to Scholastic Aptitude Tests – that determine entrance to college – and CITO-tests administered to 11 year olds [i], standardized testing has become the mechanism through which entry to important positions is either granted or refused. Let me add to that an example that came to me this afternoon in class. Just before the start of instruction, a guy walked in who, representing the Berkeley Alumni Association, offered GRE-preparatory training, while adding: “It doesn’t matter whether you are a freshman, sophomore or senior. It is never too early to start preparing for Grad school!”.
From a stratification sociology point of view, this process benefits equality of opportunity, as testing removes a lot of subjective (cultural and social) ways of selection [ii] – although one might counter argue that there is a lot of inequality in the resources that people have access to in preparing themselves (or their children) for such tests [iii].
This, however, is not the point I was trying to make. What I want to show is that the simple fact that testing has grown to be more important seems to me as a pretty good explanation for increased efforts in preparing for these tests, both on an individual level as on the meso level of institutions (such as in CITO-preparatory sessions in secondary school, the fast-growing market of outer-school homework classes and private tutors, etc.). Whether this trend is an expression of society’s addiction to quantitative instruments that grant us the feeling of certainty and controllability or, rather, a morally motivated attempt to increase social mobility, however remains the question.
A completely different matter is that of child rearing. It is considered common knowledge among exchange students that there is a large difference in the ways that American and Europeans (stereo)typically interact and relate to each other – or, rather, enter relationships. Americans tend to be very friendly and open on first encounter but rather shallow and superficial on second sight, while Europeans are cold at first, but open to deeper relationships if one pursues. Richard Sennett, in his Corrosion of Character. The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (1998) links these traits to new economic reality. According to him, this ‘American’ stance towards relating and relations is a consequence of modern labor market’s requirement of being flexible and mobile – willing to leave things and people behind in the pursuit of a better job and a ‘better life’.
Richard Freeman’s America Works. Critical Thoughts on the Exceptional U.S. Labor Market (2007) adds two findings to Sennett’s analysis. In his sum up of American labor market’s peculiarities, Freeman shows, firstly, that Americans are two to four times as mobile compared to Europeans, both job-wise as when it comes to moving across the country. Secondly, American women on average spend 10 hours less than European women on housework and child-rearing – per week.
While Freeman’s first point is, in my mind, an affirmation of what Sennett sees as the required way of acting in ‘New Capitalism’, his second points adds to it a strong ingredient for a theoretical relationship: that between the specifically American economic context (‘American Exceptionalism’) and the specifically American ways of interacting and relating that distinguishes them from Europeans. Would it not be logical, for people who – objectively – have a larger chance of losing sight of each other, to protect oneself preemptively from the pain and sorrow that this may cause; to shape one’s life in ways (typically called ‘individualism’) that one needs not to rely on others for satisfaction and comfort? But: how ‘voluntary’ is such a choice? Does one successfully convince oneself that he is complete while he represses the ‘missing’ (of deep relationships, rewarding interaction) he feels inside? Or does one not know (and feel) what one might be missing – compared to Europeans – because American standards (i.e. parental examples) are so much different?
How strong, I’d like to know, is the empirical base for these assumptions? Does this line of reasoning hold only for the, economically competitive, East-and-West-coast major urban areas or for most of the country? Or am I talking gibberish? So many interesting questions to pursue and no time to do it all. That’s what I call a luxury problem.
--------------------
[i] Not to mention former secretary of education Mark Rutte’s proposal for an ‘infant test’.
[ii] See for example Dronkers (2007) Ruggegraat van ongelijkheid. Beperkingen en mogelijkheden om ongelijke onderwijskansen te veranderen.
[iii] See for example De Regt & Weenink (2003) Investeren in je kinderen. Over de keuze voor particulier onderwijs in Nederland and Buchmann& Roscigno (2003) "Staying Ahead: SAT preparation, College Enrollment and Class Reproduction in the United States.”
Errata
Just found out today that my labor economics professor really isn't Robert Reich - his name is Michael Reich. While that explains for the sudden growth in height (and loss of beard), it was a little bit disappointing. I soon found out, however, that 'my' Reich also is an economist-superstar, so I'll be fine..
Also, I should add that there's some new photos posted on picasaweb, right here. So check 'em out.
Berkeley says Hi!
I realize that I've been a bad boy for not writing anything in the last nine (!) days. I have, however, a serious writer's block. Pending the burst of brilliance that I'm waiting for, I'm just going to write down some things that come to mind.
To start in the present: I'm currently sitting at Hagen's place working on my todo list (writing on my blog, of course, being number one, underlined and made bold). Vid just sms-ed me the question whether I am homesick and I think I can honestly say that I am not. There are many reasons for that, 'stability' at home being an important one, and Hagen is definitely another. I met Hagen in the fall. He studies mechanical engineering here at Berkeley and is originally from Dresden, Germany. From picking me up at the airport and showing me around to fixing my bike, taking care of me and preparing my meals (frequently!), he has proven himself to be a very loyal and caring friend.
Yesterday, I went clubbing with my housemate Ali and his friend Manuel. We went to the poshy Ruby Skye in San Francisco (I'll post some pics when I get them from Ali). Had a good time and a slightly less entertaining ride back to Berkeley. Slept most of the alcohol off during the night and Hagen (again) saved me with a great 'Katerfrühstück' earlier today. The day before, me and Hagen went to explore The City and visited the famous burger and jazz joint Moose's. Unfortunately, the place wasn't serving any burgers in the evening and there was no music at that time. We managed to save the day though, by a good choice of night clubs afterwards (no pictures allowed).
All my days so far have been exploratory days; walking around the neighborhood, doing one or more chores and, generally, just having fun with the people that I met or meet. On my first full day here, we went to visit the U.S.S. Hornett, a renowned Aircraft Carrier that has been turned into a museum. We received a guided tour by a retired officer on the ship which was nothing less than wonderful. You can find the rest of the pictures here.
On such days I've also checked out the courses that I'd like to follow. So far my top four lists Social Stratification (grad, Sam Lucas), Political Sociology (grad, Margaret Weir), Quantitative Methods (undergrad, Leo Goodman) and Labor economics (undergrad, Robert Reich).
The house I'm living in, the Alpha Chi Sigma fraternity (if you hit full screen, you can see the AXE mark on the steps), is huge and - since the fraternity itself cannot fill it completely - open to students of all kind. I share my room with Manuel, a nuclear engineer - not the guy I went out with - who's hardly ever there. Although my room is not that special, the house comes with some great feats: a huge living room equipped with couches and projector for our entertainment needs; a football, pool and table tennis table to keep our muscles flexible; and a roof-terrace with a gorgeous view on the San Francisco bay (pictures will follow).
Tomorrow is a holiday, 'Martin Luther King jr. day', which gives me time to write e-mails to professors, make a final selection of courses I want to 'shop' between and work on the rest of my todo list. I will try to keep this blog updated frequently for your reading pleasure. As for more interactive communication, I can receive calls and text messages on (001) 510-3nine5-7nine61 exclusively (I'm not using my Dutch mobile anymore except as an alarm bell), although the reception isn't great. Additionally, I will be using MSN (occasionally) and Skype (more frequently) and prefer the latter. Well, that's it for now. Hagen and me are going to spend some time relaxing after our hard day's work ;)
P.S. I've tried to make my post a little bit interactive by placing a lot of links that should give a feeling of the events they encircle. Note that the picasa website that contains my uploaded pictures, requires you to log in with a Google account.
P.P.S. I'm writing in English because it is my prime language here. Plus, writing my blog in English provides me with a useful exercise in the context of my studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
