My review of The Great Gatsby

Ralph Waldo Emerson has an essay entitled "Self Reliance". I read it for the first time somewhat recently, and liked it so much that I gave it to all my economics students as a parting reading.  You should read it (21 pages).

Though I'm tempted to point out the irony of Emerson traveling the country and lecturing captivated crowds to rely on themselves and not listen to anyone else, I will.

His essay actually provides an excellent context for me to explain one of my rarely explained and oft misunderstood approaches to the world: my complete disregard for movie reviews.  I don't have much respect or tolerance for movie critics, irregardless of whether their critique is positive or negative.


The release of The Great Gatsby two weeks ago was a pretty big deal in my circles.  How bout yours?  That just made me realize something...my "circles" are basically teachers and students.  Who am I?

What's the big deal with movie trailers, anyway?  I have so many friends who hunt down every trailer for new movies.  What's the point?

My approach is the opposite.  I'd rather not know what's going to happen before I see it.  Once you know you want to see a movie, why do anything more than wait?  

I don't go to the theaters often. When I do, it's usually to see something I've been wanting to see for a while.  My last several movies minus Gatsby were..., Perks of Being a Wallflower, Start Trek: Into Darkness, Silver Linings Playbook, The Hobbit, Skyfall, in order of enjoyment.  I didn't hate any of them.

Maybe it's just a self-control thing.  Some people deal with the difficulty of waiting for something they want by consuming all the information they can find as soon as they can find it.  I learned early on that comedies often use their best jokes in their trailers, and trailers even depict scenes pretty regularly that don't even make the final cut.  Spending an entire movie anticipating certain jokes, memorable one-liners and particular scenes happening, especially when some of the ones you were expecting never happen, is not my idea of a good time.

I suppose self control is a part of self reliance, but the more obvious connection is still coming.

I make a point not to read reviews before I go see a movie.

WHY DO PEOPLE DO THAT.

If you want to see Movie X, see it.  If you don't, don't.  What I don't want to hear is you second-guessing yourself because of some random critic who typed up their intentionally reactionary reaction.  I mean, I might understand if you're trying to find a good movie, or choosing between several options.  But even then, I would advise looking at the overall rating and not the details.  Extreme claims get attention, but if you take the average review, the law of large numbers says it will be closer to the truth.  Nevertheless, I would never read a review of a movie I know I'm definitely going to see. It's worse than a waste of time.

If I know anything about the human mind, I know if I tell you something specific I liked or disliked about a movie before you go see it, it will affect your experience.

"Man, Bane's voice was really over-the-top ridiculous.  Almost as ridiculous as Batman using that absurdly gravelly voice way beyond the point when EVERYONE KNOWS BATMAN IS BRUCE WAYNE."

How does that comment not affect your experience of Dark Knight Rises?  It's basically a filter that you are now forced to watch the movie through.  Coming out of the movie, your opinion will either agree with or reject mine.

It's kinda like this sign.

Because I put this in your field of vision, now you either have the urge to touch the sign (which you wouldn't have if I didn't show it to you), or you intentionally decide not to touch the sign (which you wouldn't have if I didn't show it to you).  My action forced your reaction.

Reading a review is the same.  Most times it's unavoidable, so why not avoid it when we have the option?

On a related note, The Great Gatsby had a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes the weekend of its release.  That is silly.  I have a theory to explain it.

I just finished reading The Phantom Tollbooth — a text our kids read in fifth grade.  It was recommended to me, and I liked it (didn't read any reviews beforehand, though).  Consider this quote:

"My goodness," thought Milo, "everybody is so terribly sensitive about the things they know best."

That sums it up, doesn't it? Why books turned to movies generally don't do well, with Gatsby being the most recent example.  Those are the only instances where a large percentage of the audience (and EVERY critic) comes in with a set opinion and expectations already formed.  Everyone who has read the book considers themselves a legitimate critic, and has the confidence to follow through with criticism.  If we don't have an opinion/expectation coming in, we are far less likely to come out with a negative opinion.

And the "real" critics!  These people's horses could not be higher.  If the movie adaption doesn't match their particular interpretation, they initiate lambasting.  The problem is, the appeal of quality novels is their openness. You can't make a successful (mainstream) movie as ambiguous and open to interpretation as the original book; you just can't (especially if the primary plot mover is internalized).  And Baz Luhrmann was certainly attempting to make a mainstream movie.  If fact, if you watch his interview on the Colbert Report, you'll see how proud he is that The Great Gatsby sold more copies in the week before the movie opening than sold in Fitzgerald's ENTIRE LIFE.  Sure, it's not the ideal adaption, but it created a world where more people read F. Scott Fitzgerald, and that is better than it not happening.

By the way, if you don't have strong feelings about Carey Mulligan, you might after watching this clip.

I'm not saying I totally disregard movie reviews, I just refuse to "like" or "not like" something because some stranger told me to.  Once I've seen the movie and decided what I think, I'll read a few reviews.  My goal is to see how closely my opinion lines up with the critics.  They often have insight that I find useful, and observations I hadn't considered before.  And so, over time, my initial impression becomes more and more informed, balanced and, well, good.

But I'm not about to burden you with my actual review.

Save / Invest

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear mom,

This entry is dedicated to you.  You gave up your veterinary practice to homeschool me for my first 13 years.  You taught me how to read, and you taught me how to think for myself.  In addition to everything else, you're probably the only person who reads all of my blog posts.  Thanks.

Love,
Nathan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently finished teaching a week of Game Theory in my economics class.  Game is my favorite type of theory, and economics is my favorite type of class.  When I gave them the test, I added a little section at the end which I called a "Bonus".  It was a bonus, but it was also a game theory experiment, a mind game, and the outcome in an indicator of how much faith we should have in humanity.  Here it is:

BONUS

1. You have a free bonus point right here in your grasp (+1).  You can choose to keep it, or invest it.  If 85% or more of the class invests, each investor will gain an additional bonus point.  If less than 85% invests, each investor will lose their bonus point.  If you save it, it’s guaranteed.  Circle one.

            SAVE                                                   INVEST

Now, what is the most desirable outcome of this game?  Let's break it down.  It's simple.

                    Everyone Else (>85%)

                  Save              Invest

       Save    1, 1                1, 2

You

      Invest   0, 1                2, 2

The point value before the comma is what "You" get, the one after is what "Everyone Else" gets. Is there any additional information you need?  It IS important to know that my class isn't graded on a curve.  It can't help your grade to hurt someone else's, and theoretically everyone could finish with A's.  Another way of looking at it is that all the students are competing against me (no curve), as opposed to each other (curve).

Given a non-competitive environment, what is the best decision?  Keep in mind that these are students who probably have a better understanding of cost/benefit than the typical high school sophomore.  The best outcome is clearly that everyone invest.  When I say clearly, I mean it's as clear as the answer to "Would you rather have one bonus point, or two? No, this isn't a trick question." 

The students had a tad more information than you do.  They knew how many of the fellow game-players had to invest for them to gain that extra extra point (and when I say they "knew", I mean they had access to that information).  For both of my sections of 16 students, the magic number was two.  They could have up to two people save, and the rest of the 14 would still be safe to invest.  If three or more saved, the investors would lose their investment.  They also knew the characters/personality of other players in this "game", which could turn out to be a positive or a negative, depending on the other players.  

To review.  Asking what outcome is best is the same as asking which outcome results in the highest total of bonus points.  Well, "all invest" equals 32 total bonus points, "all save" equals 16 bonus points, and the worst-case scenario?  Three save, 13 invest.  THAT results in three total bonus points.  So we could end up anywhere from 3 to 32 bonus points.

With me so far?

Great! I trusted you, really.  It's all those other people I question sometimes.

Last week I did a week on business cycle theory, focusing almost exclusively on the Frederich Hayek vs. John Maynard Keynes debate.  small government vs. big government.  lasseiz faire vs. interventionism.  intentional saving vs. intentional deficits.  solve the boom vs. solve the bust.  human action vs. central planning.  

They are opposite in every conceivable way, yet they both make convincing arguments.  Okay so "opposite" is a slight exaggeration, since Keynes is more towards the center of the big picture spectrum (flanked by Marx on the left and libertarians/anarcho-capitalists on the right).  Here is my off-the-cuff summary...

Hayek says if we allowed individuals to make their own decisions without interfering with their incentives, we would arrive at the best outcome (though he admits there will be less-than-optimal outcomes along the way).  Interference in the market results in false signals, false signals result in malinvestment, and malinvestment can lead to booms (unsustainably "strong" economies).  Booms eventually lead to busts.  

Keynes says we can't trust individuals to make decisions which are best for them in the long run.  He says the fluctuation in the stock markets are based on random & unpredictable elements of the human psyche, calling these irrational impulses "animal spirits".  Since we can't predict them, the best solution is to minimize the busts once they happen.  When people notice the economy is slowing/crashing, they become conservative and hoard their money.  This over-saving leads to an even slower economy, leading to more saving, leading to... he calls this the Paradox of Thrift.  The solution, then, is to replace the lost consumer spending with government spending.  The gov't can provide jobs and stimulate the market, at least until the economy is strong again.  

Is it funny that I'm concerned that one summary is noticeably longer/more complicated than the other? Because of Occam's Razor.  It's concerning to me.  I'm trying to avoid bias.

Their debate is articulately and succinctly stated in this unbiased video. It's 8 minutes.  You don't have to watch it.

When it comes down to it, Hayek has faith in individuals, and Keynes does not.  Keynes thinks he needs to make decisions FOR normal (irrational) people.  

Are you wondering why this post thus far has been on two completely separate topics?

Are you wondering how many students saved and how many invested?

Are you wondering who is right?

Where to begin..

The answer is 8.  Eight students invested, and eight saved.  In both sections!

So both sections received a total of eight bonus points (eight got one, eight lost one), approximately 24 points less than the optimal-and-completely-attainable outcome of 32.  

What conclusion can we draw from this?  As the teacher/dictator, where is the teachable moment?

Well, the students failed to arrive at the best outcome under their own power.  Simply put, Keynes won round one.  I could "guarantee" a better solution by taking away their freedom to make the choice at all. And it's in my power to do so.  Why not?

As we discussed in class later, what's the difference between this situation and, say, passing a law requiring everyone to wear a seat belt? Or, making smoking illegal.  Orrr... even more literal, imagine this.  Since, upon retirement, a majority of people wish they had accumulated more money, and, even knowing this, younger people (such as myself) STILL don't put enough way, shouldn't the government force us to do what's best for us in the long run, and divert a percentage of money from our incomes into saving?  If the decision is Spend All  /  Save Some, and the best long run outcome is "Save Some", should we even be left with a choice?  Sound familiar?

Maybe you're still wondering why anyone would choose to save in MY little game.  It comes down to a few things.  First, it matters how you think about the bonus point.  Some people think of it as potentially avoiding losing a point when they save.  The other type of person thinks of it as potentially gaining a point when they invest.  The first type will tend to be conservative, the second embraces risk.  The decision they make in this game would be a somewhat reliable indicator for how risky they are in general (and when I say "somewhat reliable", I mean I would love to track them for the rest of their lives and see what decisions they make and how they turn out).  It's very difficult for each type of person to see from the other's perspective, as they realized during discussion.  Many people strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains.  It's called Loss Aversion and I'll tell you more about it later.

The thought process the savers described in class was fascinating.  "I was afraid that too many people would save, so I saved."  Translated, "I was afraid that other people would make the worst decision, so I made the worst decision."  They became what they were afraid of, because of their fear.  This lines up perfectly with Keynes theory; he said that uncertainty leads to underinvestment.  

I wasn't finished with the game yet, though.  After we discussed it, I had to try it again.  I'm more than a little obsessed, if you can't tell.  One thing that adds another angle is the concept of a Nash Equilibrium.  In a multi-player "game", a Nash Equilibrium is a stable outcome where you know the payoffs of the other players, and there is no benefit to any one player changing their strategy.  This game has two Nash Equilibrium points.  If everyone saves, no one player can benefit by switching to invest. Similarly, if everyone invests, no one player can benefit from switching to save.  Because either extreme is a stable state, once the players shift in one direction, that shift becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  For example, if the second time 6 invested and 10 saved, the shifts in strategy would most likely continue until all 16 saved.  And, once all 16 saved, it would take something special for them to break out of that cycle.  The opposite is true as well.

Thankfully, both sections moved to the better end of the spectrum.  Presented with the same problem, one section had all 16 invest, and the other had 14.  

Hayek wins round two.  

The only difference between round one and round two was education.  This is a hopeful solution in my opinion, because it's attainable.  Education can be fixed; we are fixing education.  Though the government (me, in this case) theoretically has the power to coerce people into choosing "correctly", I could never side with Keynes and endorse an increase in government power.  Everything I've seen, learned, and experienced has reinforced the idea that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  When you give someone power over you, you are also giving them an opportunity to abuse it.    So, given the choice between taking away freedom or adding education, I'd rather add education.

*Update*
I added this game to the end of my 8th graders' final.  It was the most straightfoward test I gave all year, with the exception of this little mind game.
In one section, they had 5 invest and 17 save.
In the other, 12 invested and 8 saved.

I had predicted the second section would have a higher rate of investment, but I didn't really have a good reason until after the results were in.  Wanna know the reason?

This game is a fascinatingly reliable indicator of how much trust exists in a particular environment.  If you trust your classmates, you are more likely to invest.  If you don't trust your peers, you will save.  This theory is backed up by the fact that the chemistry in the second section is much better than the first.  I predict that this game could predict the degree to which participants in a particular environment trust and respect their "teammates".  

Sports, man, ship.

This is intended to be a rant that I often start and rarely get to finish.  In fact, I may have never gotten my point across.  Hence, the writing.

Let's start with a moving picture show!  You like moving picture shows, verdad?

Here is the set-up. There is a organization that publishes commercials promoting various values.  Values.com.  If you go to the website, this is the intro to the clip promoting "sportsmanship":

"When the game is on the line we find out what kind of character we really have. In the heat of a championship basketball game a young man makes a decision that affects his entire team." 

Link to "Sportmanship" spot click on this now after reading that up there.

Heart-warming.  The comments beneath the video say as much.

"Still one of your greatest spots! What a powerful message for our troubled youth! This should be shown in every school in America! Gripping!"
-jhon from California

"While watching this video, my mind has been opened up to the concept of sportsmanship. I can't help but to tear up in this. Thank you for such an inspirational, thought out video." *
—Cc from USA
...
...
...
I hate it.  

Have you watched it yet?  You really need to watch it before you read on.  

Growing up, I don't think my mother was ever within sight/earshot of a TV commercial without making a disparaging comment and walking off disgustedly.  Maybe that skepticism rubbed off, because one thing I've noticed about my friend group is a habit of picking apart every advertisement thrown our way.  This is different, though.  I want this commercial (and Values.com) to be well-received, and I think they are shooting themselves in the thigh.  So, it's a frustrated sort of hatred.

http://www.values.com/inspirational-stories-tv-spots/106-Basketball

Is now a good time for this picture?  

I love making things difficult for myself.

Again, this is the type of statement where people don't really wait for an explanation before they condemn you.  I do pick my shirt statements carefully, nevertheless, and I think my teammanship record is defensible, so I was okay with getting judged for this shirt (at the time).  I wouldn't wear it now.  Speaking of which, I saw a shirt at the Nike outlet yesterday which read... well... THIS....."The Perfect Role Model." 

Does Nike realize how hilarious it is that if you wanted to eliminate potential role models by sight alone, you could start with anyone wearing that shirt? I suspect they do, but they know it will sell.  Or maybe the masses' idea of a role model is extraordinarily different than my own.  

I would wear it, but I wouldn't anyone expect anyone to slow down and listen to why it's okay to wear it because of the beautiful, "perfect" irony.  "No, see, I'm perfect because I recognize I'm not perfect!"  If a kid recognizes that as a desirable trait in a role model, he doesn't need a role model.  I'll stop there.

On a similar note, I have a shirt that reads "LEGEND" across the back.  It was a gift from a girls IM flag football team I coached at Hillsdale, and I truly, genuinely appreciate it.  It also makes me look like a d-bag when I wear it.  

Where was I going with this?  Uhhm, so I was hating on sportsmanship which led to hating on Nike which led to...LEGEND.  The point is, don't make up your mind before you hear my explanation!    

Back on track.  

I hate that commercial.  Here's why.

1) It completely misunderstands the roles of players and referees.

2) It wouldn't happen in real life.

One.  Referees are trained and paid to officiate games so they can enforce the rules as accurately and unbiased-ly as humanly possible.  Their purpose is rule-enforcement.  They don't care whether players break rules on purpose or by accident, they enforce the same either way.
On the other side, the players train and participate so they can win the competition.  Their strategies are centered around the rules and their strategies assume the rules are enforced accurately.

The roles are clearly defined.  Referees don't play, and players don't referee.  Just to project this point out logically, a player making the deciding call on a out-of-bounds ball could be compared to a referee purposefully physically interfering with live play.  You can't even imagine what that would look like.  Maybe this will help..

See?! Weird.

Two.  A ref would never change his call based on what a player told him.  Think about it.  Referees severely disapprove of players making calls, even calls that agree with them.  When I played, I would get in trouble for making the traveling sign after a player obviously traveled and the referee is simultaneously making the traveling call.  I would be agreeing with the call, and I would still get reprimanded.  They cannot allow the idea they are agreeing with a player's opinion, because it would totally undermine their respectability.  Ask any ref what they do if they don't know who the ball touched last.  In that situation, it's better to make a demonstrative call either way than show a sign of uncertainty.  They would never ask a player (or coach or fan or anyone), irregardless of that player's honesty or sportsmanship.

So, the commercial.

The ball goes out of bounds in a close game with seconds left.  The ref makes the call.  Maybe he's wrong.  As far as the players go, it doesn't matter.  That's a risk you take when you allow rules to be enforced by flawed, imperfect humans.  Theoretically, players and fans should understand that, coming in.  Theoretically.  Maybe someone should remind them...  It's often referred to as the "human element" by announcers discussing blown calls.  People make mistakes.  Referees are no different.  Just as players gain credibility by winning, referees gain credibility by making correct calls.  If you consistently make bad calls, you aren't going to last very long as a referee.  Maybe you ruin a few games before you figure it out, but you certainly won't be reffing any important games if you have a questionable record.

I've been a referee.  It's one of the occupations that come to mind as being MORE thankless than teaching.  It's awful.  Every person watching thinks they are better than you, and with every call you anger half the audience.  Zero sympathy, ever.  You couldn't pay me enou— no, I have a price.  I could be Dick Bevetta.

Anyway, the "human element" is slowly being phased out of competition at the highest levels.  We have all sorts of replay technology, and it's being used more and more often.  I have mixed feelings, but it'll be a long time before that technology is utilized at more than a tiny percentage of overall competitions.  I'll move on.

Not that I'm cynical, but that referee at the end who (theoretically) changes the call would probably assume the player is trying to point-shave or throw the game purposefully before he would assume the player is showing "good sportsmanship".  Either way, no way he changes the call.

Quick anecdote.

My sophomore year of high school basketball had some of the best memories.  One memory in particular applies.  We were down four points to a rival at home with a minute or so left.  I had taken a three on our earlier possession, and thought I was fouled.  It wasn't called, and I, being a sophomore, dissolved into a sophomoric mess.  The opposing team had grabbed the rebound, then missed two free throws.  Our stud senior point guard, Caleb Wood, drove down the court and forced a three-pointer with 8.5 seconds left.  He hadn't made one all year (am I wrong, Caleb?).  He was fouled.  It was called.  And yes, you can be a stud point guard without a decent three-point shot.  That's why he made all three free throws!  Eight seconds left, and they are inbounding the ball.  We, naturally, are pressuring the inbounds pass, hoping for a steal or a quick foul.  The inbounder waits, looks, then launches a pass to my side of the court, near the intersection of half court and out of bounds on the (my) left.  I read his eyes, took a step, leaped, and quickly and athletically determined that it was going over my head.  I turned in the air to see Caleb streaking across my field of vision and knocking the pass down.  Stud.  He gained possession and planted his outside foot inches from the out-of-bounds line to halt his significant momentum. I can still see his sneakers, the brief window of inbound hardwood, and the black line. Oh, and his horrendous, home-schooled socks.  Then, his planted food slid.  It slid over the line and several inches beyond.  I froze, my mind stuck between elation (steal!) and remorse (aw, shucks, we would have a chance to win this game if only Caleb's shoe had slightly better traction).  Caleb started dribbling.  I remained frozen.  I looked to the ref for the whistle.  Nothing. Surely. They. He. But. How? The ref hadn't seen it.

In the video, Caleb starts dribbling toward me, and I can't move.  It's funny.  He literally has to yell at me and gesture to get out of his way.  I look broken.  He dribbles around me to the right side of the court, down to the baseline, down the baseline, and takes a running floater over two players as the buzzer sounds.  It drops in, and that moment is preserved forever as the loudest I will ever hear a crowd cheer for a team of which I am a part.  It was a roar.  Not everyone gets to hear a roar.  I couldn't appreciate it, though, because I'm still standing where I was, broken.  I had even forgotten the score, and thought we were going into overtime.  We had won, though, as Caleb scored 5 unanswered points in 8.5 seconds.

Now.  Where does sportsmanship play into that experience?  Caleb didn't know he had gone out, but what if he had?  Should he have made the call for the refs?  Should I?  I say no.  There are a plethora of ways to exhibit good sportsmanship, and none of them involve players doing the referees' job.

I stumbled across a quote somewhat recently which summarizes this dilemma and makes me think of Caleb every time I hear it.

“The man who wins may have been counted out several times, but he didn’t hear the referee."  H.E. Jansen

I don't know who this guy is, and neither does the internet.  I suppose I should take it as my own.

Ever-qualifying, I will add that these thoughts don't apply to self-refereed competitions.  There, you make your own calls, and sportsmanship is a crucial variable in that process.

Values.com is trying to do a good thing, and does that thing with some degree of effectiveness.  I hate the idea that they could have the initiative and resources to complete such a project, then screw it up in the delivery. How they deliver this particular message inhibits their potential effectiveness, in my opinion. Their target audience (young athletes) is the group most likely to be as skeptical as I am. If the marketer doesn't "get" how sports work, the value is lost.  Everyone who understands basketball is distracted by the lack of realism and, as a result, can't focus on the point.  That's all that I'm saying.  I'm tempted to segue into a rant about Zac Effron's basketball scene in High School Musical, but that's neither here nor there.

If you feel like reading another argument against something most people wouldn't dare to question, check out THIS article.  It argues a "Christian" genre of music shouldn't exist, and does a swell job.  Tough sell, bro.

5 Reasons to Kill Christian Music

*What are the odds this comment was posted by an employee of Values.com?  Is there a value that applies to spamming your own content with homer comments?  It definitely says something about Values.com marketers or its fan-base.  It's just so positive! And sweepingly specific!  Even the grammar is solid, minus one missing hyphen, and those confuse everyone.**

**This footnote was influenced by The Sports Guy.

Retention Analytics

Retention is the most important aspect of learning.  I mean, learning without retention isn't learning at all.  You have to be able to recall information later in order to utilize your education.  The concept of "memory" requires encoding, storage, AND retrieval.  Here is a wikipedia article on the "forgetting curve."

I posted thoughts a while ago about how important reviewing is to long-term memory.  This is somewhat of a follow-up.

In 8th-grade medieval history, we switch to literature in the third quarter.  All the sections read The Song of Roland, which is a medieval era Frankish tale of deeds, or "chanson de geste". Basically an epic poem, in medieval French. There are certainly historical aspects, as the poem tells the tale of Charlemagne campaigning against Spain and its recently-established Muslim kingdoms.    Most of the information, however, is composed of legends and embellishments.

The point here is that my classes haven't focused on real medieval history since December.  Close to three months.  We've been reading and discussing it as literature, with very few references to previous material.  We finished the Song of Roland Friday, and we have one week until spring break.  My goal for this week was to re-familiarize my students with things they had already learned in the fall.

I had a few review activities planned today, but this morning I was struck with a brilliant, savant-esque idea — have them re-take the fall semester final exam.

This is the type of idea that, the first few times you consider it, sounds as if it won't work.  Then, when you really think about it, it's perfect.

One aspect of the perfection was seeing their faces when I broke the news at the beginning of class.  It was a fluid shift from horror (I'm gonna fail!) to resignation (He's not joking this time again!) to resolve (I'm going to FOCUS) to anticipation (It won't count against my grade!) to, in a few cases, confidence (I remember this!).  Some of them clearly relished the opportunity to test their knowledge, no strings attached.

My semester final was half-discussion, half-objective questions.  The objective questions included multiple choice, a timeline, and a map.  Given my time constraints, I decided to give them the 40 multiple choice questions in class.  That way, they would have time to trade n' grade in class.

While they answered the questions, I went through and added up how many M/C questions each of them missed the first time around.  Here are some numbers:

22 students in the class (I only did it in one section).
Final exam average overall: 86.1%
Missed 8.318 questions out of 40 M/C, on average.
Average on M/C questions portion: 79.2%

Now, I'm notorious, perhaps even infamous, for having difficult multiple choice questions.  I don't follow the unwritten rules.  I have options like "All of the below", or give eight possible answers instead of four, or word phrases confusingly.  Not only that, but you really have to understand the information to get the questions right (at a passable rate).  I like to think I've instilled a fear in my students similar to what Dr. Pongracic does to his economics students at Hillsdale.  Before taking his classes, I never in my life had struggled on M/C tests, and I wouldn't hesitate to take M/C over anything else, anytime.  After Pongracic, I viewed multiple choice in a different way, almost like they had betrayed me and my capability to dominate standardized testing.

Here's an example of one of my multiple choice questions I consider to be in the "comprehensive" category.

"What event did NOT assist the spread of feudalism after the 9th century?
a) the Treaty of Verdun
b) the Norman Conquest
c) The Capetian Dynasty
d) the fall of the Carolingian Empire"

In order to get this question right, you need to have a decent grasp of several key concepts.  You need to know each of the possible answers, when/where they occurred what effect they had immediately and afterward.  For example, the Norman Conquest effect wasn't obvious.  William the Conqueror took England, but wanted it primarily for tax purposes, so he brought feudalism over from the mainland so England could operate in his absence.

I also like it because you could arrive at the correct answer by process of elimination — if you know enough about the "wrong" answers, you can identify the correct one.  The Treaty of Verdun is very much connected to the fall of the Carolingian Empire, so if you know that you can eliminate both answers.  Additionally, if you truly understand how feudalism operates, you will understand that a dynasty means a strong central ruler, which feudalism typically did not have.

Or, you have at least a 25% chance of guessing right. [The answer is "c"]

This demonstrates two things at least.  1. Multiple choice can be an effective method of testing in certain cases, with the right approach.  2. I can overanalyze anything.  Well, almost anything.  Most things.  I overanalyze every time, 60% of the time.

Okay, they just finished their re-examination, we can look at the data!  My new thing as of yesterday is fake-live-blogging events that I shouldn't be.

This is a big moment.  How bad was it going to be?  As a constant crammer through high school, my expectations are probably lower than most...but this isn't just a FASCINATING experiment, it also reflects on my ability to teach. gulp.

Here's what I'll do.  I'll give you the number MISSED by each student the first time, most to least.

23, 18, 16, 13, 12, 12, 11, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 0

Annnnd the second time around, three months later.  Order is matched from the first list.

25, 16, 20, 14, 22, 19, 13, 14, 9, 11, 10, 16, 10, 11, 7, 6, 7, 12, 1, 4, 4, 1

The difference comes out to be -3.13 per student, so 11.454 missed questions, or 71.36%.  (down from 8.318 and 79.2%, remember?)

This is the part where I get over my head, statistically speaking.  I could go into statistical regression analysis and the guessing-odds, but the pool is just too small to spend time doing that.

That being said, there are definitely a few interesting cases in those 22.  Notably, the 12-to-22, 3-to-12, and 8-to-16.  Then there's the 18-to-16.  The most obvious explanations are a few successful crammers and a lucky guesser, but I'd love to do this a few more times with a few other classes (or, even better, the same class) and see what happens.

Even though there's waay too many qualifiers and variables to mention, for now, I'm going to voice my gut instinct and say this is a positive outcome.  Like I told the kids, they lost about one question-worth of knowledge per month, on average.  If they had performed that way on the first final, the test average would have been about an B-.  More importantly, I don't prioritize memorizing a ton of stock information in my classes.  I try to focus on broad ideas, recognizing cause and analyzing effect, and trends.  If they maintained most of the specific information, I would hope they've retained even more of the broad concepts (the stuff they don't realize they are learning).

I bet you didn't think I could write this much about a silly re-taken test.

Death at 15

When you're fifteen, you're supposed to feel invincible.  Whether you agree with that or not, a majority of fifteen-year-olds do feel invincible.  I did.

People say it's unnatural for parents to bury a child.  I'm not sure if it's unnatural, or just statistically unlikely in the 21st century.  This might be because I'm an economics teacher and I think of everything in graphs and ratios, or it might be because I'm a history teacher and I have a decent grasp of average lifespan in different time periods.  Throughout most of history, parents burying children has been a common practice at worst.  When you account for low infant mortality rates, plagues, wars, and the rest, the fact is death was a constant presence in everyday life.  

A sophomore at Scottsdale Prep died from cancer last week.  She was diagnosed with brain cancer as a freshman, and gone a year later.  

I didn't really know this girl, but I taught her sister last year.  Her death, though it wasn't a complete surprise, caused shock waves throughout the school.  It's one thing to say someone has less than a year to live, it's another thing entirely for that person to die.  The sophomores in particular were affected.  I teach the sophomores.  I had half of them in the fall semester, and the other half this semester.  When she died, her section had been under my watch for less than a week.  Though I officially had her section, 10A, I never taught her.  They had economics during first period, and when she came to school it was always later in the day.  She is still on my attendance roster.  

When she was initially diagnosed, she wasn't given long to live.  Even with this information, and frequent chemotherapy treatments, she kept coming to school.  She was in a wheelchair and other students would take turns helping her from class to class.  I saw her at more than a few home basketball games in the first semester.  In fact, she was at a basketball game the week before she passed away.  

It was a Wednesday morning when we were informed she had taken a bad turn and was in critical condition.  I  didn't know what to do with this information.  When I showed up to my first period class, quizzes in hand, I walked into a room full of red-eyed and teary students.  Today is not going to go according to plan.  

So, what can a teacher do in this situation?  I had no idea.  I can't pretend to identify with them, I can't pretend like everything is alright, and, because I was so aware of the first two impossibilities, I can't successfully distract them.  To make the situation more complicated, I had the entire spectrum of grieving kids in both my economics classes.  There were some outright crying, some entirely unreachable, some trying to console others, some wishing they felt something, and some who were desperate for normalcy.  I felt like all of them were looking to me for guidance, for a response.  

In essence, I told them I didn't know what the best response was.  I told them some of my thoughts from the preceding paragraph.  I told them I wasn't going to give them homework, but that I would assign optional writing assignments in class.  Those who wanted could leave the class (theoretically to visit the grief counselor) or work on something else.

This was the story for three days.  Her health had plummeted Tuesday night, and she passed away after school Thursday.  

Though I had observed the grieving around me, the impact of Her life and death weren't real to me until that night.  Several of my friends and I had planned to attend a jazz choir and improv show at the school.  In the wake of her death, the program was changed to become a tribute to her.  Many students read poems, sang songs, or otherwise publicly demonstrated what she meant to them.  We all cried that night.

The school issued a statement all the teachers were supposed to read in first period Friday.  I understand the value of official statements.  I decided the value was negative in this case.  Instead, I paraphrased the statement and included some of my own thoughts.  Briefly, I told them I believe everything happens for a reason and everything eventually works out for good, though often its easier to perceive chaos and evil in the world.  The education at Scottsdale Prep is intended to help us sort through what is important and what is not, to discover meaning in life, and to live with purpose.  This is what the "Prep" is for.   Then I asked if anyone wanted to say anything.  After a few seconds one boy suggested the whole class hold hands around our discussion table and pray.  We did.  A few students prayed to God, a few others just spoke to her as if she was still there.  It was good.    

Is there a takeaway here?

You want to protect the ones you love.  Parents want to protect children, teachers want to protect students.  I wanted to do anything I could to minimize the hurt those kids were feeling.  But is that the best instinct?  It's a losing battle, with that approach.  Bad things happen.   This is why the prospect of having children of my own is terrifying.  Watching them struggle will be infinitely worse than experiencing those same struggles firsthand.  I think the goal should be to prepare the ones you love.  Otherwise, you just have a sheltered child and an imminent disaster.  They need a ready defense for the world and the pain it brings.  They need faith and hope and love.

We live in a entertainment culture.  Entertain me until I die, so I never have to confront my impending death.  Everything is a distraction.  We are sheltered from death.  You can't talk about it, you don't know how to feel when you see it.  This is why "grief counselor" is a "legitimate" occupation.  Even worse, we see death non-stop in fake life.  In movies and video games and TV shows and yeah-I'm-gonna-call-the-news "fake life".  You think this doesn't have a detachment effect?  You think you have an accurate understanding of what losing someone is like, just from observation?  I've said it before, you can't fully understand something until it happens to you.  The death of a friend is no exception.  You can read about heroes losing their closest friend in all the classics, but it's never really real.  If it happens to you, you'll never be able to read that story the same way again.  THIS is the emotion the author originally wanted you to feel, and now you'll never forget it.  

Maybe those fifteen year olds don't feel so invincible now.  Maybe that's a good thing.  Maybe it's a tragedy, too.

How to Study: A comprehensive study guide on studying

The following is a hand-out I typed up before school today and gave to my economics students offhandedly in class...A few of them enjoyed it.

Despite the frequent demand for this commonly misunderstood activity, many would-be studyers find themselves embarking on a journey during finals week on which they will be measured and found wanting. 

     The first rule of studying is to save your mind for when it is most efficient.  In other words, never study more than a night in advance of a major assessment.  When timed correctly, the urgency of your situation will force your hopelessly-distractible brain into something resembling focus, allowing you to absorb and comprehend an A’s worth of material in a C-span of time.  Plus, this route ensures your long-term memory won’t be affected at all, and then you can fill it to capacity with the best perk combos or the blood types of your favorite “singers”.  Don’t crack that textbook too soon when one night will do!

     Once you’ve given yourself no choice but to cram, there is no longer a point where you experience the paralysis that comes with unnecessary choices.  You don’t have to worry about what the optimal amount of sleep is, or what you should have for breakfast, or even if you should have breakfast — you can be quietly confident in the knowledge that, in order to pass, you have to study up until the second where your teacher pries your notes from your clammy, sleep-deprived hands.   And when you finish that test, you are free to start studying immediately for the next.  It’s simple, and simplicity is refreshing.

     When your psyche hits that unmistakable melding of panic and despondency, you know its time to sit down and do work.  Once you’ve arrived, the next aspect to consider is your environment.  Set up camp on the most comfortable arrangement possible — a couch or La-Z-Boy will do, but a bed is best.  Anywhere you can stretch out and close your eyes in order to review what you just learned, really.  You need a tasty beverage within reach, and a snack  (pick a snack that complements the stress-induced cortisol coursing through your system).   Develop a system where you eat every time you don’t know something, and reward yourself with a drink every time you get a review question right.

     The mistake many students make at this point is minimizing potential distractions.  In fact, distractions are a vital component of productive studying.  They give your mind a break from reality, and encourage a renewed sense of urgency when to you return to the task at hand.  Before you collect any unorthodox distractions such as Rubek’s Cubes or Sudoku, make sure you have the time-tested favorites — your cell phone and the TV remote.  There’s nothing that encourages humanity’s development like a little TLC on in the background, and you obviously need to be able to check in with your friends at any moment.  Plus, when you aren’t Snapchatting Instagrammed pictures of your latest high score on Temple Run, you can always Tweet about how many likes your Facebook status just got:  “Truth is…im studying so hard right now! omg lms if u h8 finals lol!!”  Yeah, that’s worthy of checking up on every few minutes.

     If you follow these instructions and leave the classroom anything less than fully confident in your “A”, the only course of action remaining is to blame your teachers.  How could they expect you to know information that far back in the study guide?  They clearly don’t understand that you have other classes to study for, too.  Let’s be honest, though, at this point in the year the teachers have predetermined your grade anyway.  There’s a reason no one hands back finals.  Happy studying!  

Since 8th-graders are harder to reach with satire, I added a disclaimer to their version:

*Disclaimer:  This advice is satirical.  A more accurate title would be “How NOT to study, but you probably will do all of these things anyway.” 

My actual advice is essentially the opposite:  Review your class notes in each class at the end of each week.  Ask your teacher to explain things you don’t understand.  If nothing else, it shows your teacher that you care and you want to learn, which is valuable in itself.  When you are studying, go to a quiet place and sit in a non-cushioned chair with a desk.  Leave your phone in another room and don’t play music with lyrics.  Learn which friends help you study, and which friends are better to hang out with when you don’t need to learn anything.  You cannot multitask nearly as well as you think you can.  It is MUCH better to study for 30 minutes, and then watch a TV show for 30 minutes, than it is to sit in front of a TV for 60 minutes, “studying”.  When you sit down to study, it should be all you do. Stop trying to mix work and play, and both activities will be more productive.  You can focus on what you need to learn when you study, and then you can enjoy relaxing instead of feeling guilty for not studying. 

I learned these things the hard way, by many sleepless nights and unsatisfactory test grades.  I’m giving you an opportunity to learn from my experience.   Take it.  And hey, if you already utilize this advice, congratulations!  You’re ahead of the curve.