Tea, Fire and Boredom
Fruit and Females
The other day I made the mistake of bemoaning my lack of girlfriend and general female companionships with two friends of mine. This qualifies as a mistake as it gives them license to voice their well known complaints about my general preference towards females. It also gives them a chance to point out that I am, in fact, a mean, cynical asshole, which, to most people, is not a trait conducive to creating friendship. While life does not generally rewards honesty and sincerity, I feel that it creates a smaller group of closer friends.
However, one of them pointed out that girls are currently “out of season”. This evoke images of peaches growing on trees and cucumbers ripening on the vines… in season? I was tempted to make some sexual reference in connection to produce and dating, but I decided to allow him to go on with his comment. In his view, the availability of datable girls varies by time of year, in the same way that fruits and vegetables go in and out of season. Just as one would look for blueberries in the summer and butternut squash in the fall/winter, one has best wait until the proper season to find a girlfriend.
He pointed out that the beginning of the school year (the fall) is one of the best times. Students are often lonely after ending summer flings and just lonely from not having seen college friends in a while. Seperation can add a new found outlook and just novelty that can act as a catalyst for relationships. Plus, the weather is getting colder and Christmas is coming up, all good incentives to find yourself a partner. As winter approaches, your quicker and more aggressive competition will have claimed an increasing large proportion of the target female population. In a sense, girls are going “out of season” as they become more difficult to find and generally lower quality when found. Things do get better after Valentines Day, as winter ends and people realize “oh shit, I have finals/other school work”. If you don’t believe me, look at the attendance of the eating clubs in the winter vs. the spring. At that moment, a spring full of blissful frolicking must take the backseat to studying. This disrupts existing relationships. However, the spring also introduces the prospect of summer. While more existing relationships will be broken, people will be resistant to creating new ones as time in the current year runs short. The summer comes, flings fly and the cycle begins again in the fall.
While somewhat entertaining, if also cynical, he takes a very cyclic approach to relationships. The flow of females is tied to the growing seasons. It seems more effective for someone trying to “play the field” instead of a committed relationship. I have to complement him for his unique reasoning and strong use of metaphor. It’s actually quite funny, because I have my own produce based metaphor for relationships, though it is quite different, perhaps more linear.
Instead of annual crops that grow and die in one season, consider a fruit orchard. True, fruit trees are still tied to seasonal change. Cherry trees bear their flowers in the spring and fruit in the summer. But trees live for many, many years, and the seasonal ebb and flow are tiny variances in the a large time span. A tree does not so much come into season, but matures over time. An avocado tree will often not bear fruit for over a decade after it is planted. To find a tree and watch it grow into a bright future is something that I can look forward.
The following is an excerpt from the letter signed by 23 department chairs at the University of California at San Diego. The letter was dated June 15, 2009 and was forwarded to the University of California Office of the President:
“3. Establish different budget priorities for the profiles of different UC campuses. Every state system of public education save California manages to sustain (at best) one flagship campus. Many, including such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, do not manage even that. We pretend we have ten such campuses. In better times, there were in reality four flagships (Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, and – in its highly specialized way, UCSF). Rather than destroying the distinctiveness and excellence at Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD by hiring temporary lecturers to do most of the teaching (and contribute nothing to original research, nothing to our reputation, nothing to the engine of economic growth a first rate research university represents), we propose that you urge the President and Regents to acknowledge that UCSC, UCR, and UC Merced are in substantial measure teaching institutions (with some exceptions – programs that have genuinely achieved national and international excellence and thus deserve separate treatment), whose funding levels and budgets should be reorganized to match that reality.
We suggest, more generally, that in discussions systemwide, you drop the pretence that all campuses are equal, and argue for a selective reallocation of funds to preserve excellence, not the current disastrous blunderbuss policy of even, across the board cuts. Or, if that is too hard, we suggest that what ought to be done is to shut one or more of these campuses down, in whole or in part. We have suffered more than a 30 per cent cut in our funding from the state, and we can thus no longer afford to be a ten campus system – only a nine, or an eight (and a half) campus system. Corporations faced with similar problems eliminate or sell off their least profitable, least promising divisions. Even General Motors, which for decades resisted this logic, to its near-fatal cost, is lopping off Hummer, Buick, GMC, Opel, Saab and who knows what else.”
It looks as if I chose the right time to leave the state. Ha, I’m kidding of course. Though I must admit that, to an extent, Princeton bought me off. In many ways I would have preferred UCSD. It has better weather and much much better fish tacos. But going to a University that has an obscene (if rapidly shrinking) endowment has its advantages.
In analyzing the hypothetical closing of smaller UC campuses, it is useful to consider which groups of people would benefit from the implementation of this proposal. By closing the smaller UC’s, the UC system would have fewer spots available in each year’s classes (unless they implemented plans to expand the size of the remaining universities, an idea not endorsed or even mentioned in the letter). The campuses would enjoy more funding/student. But, there would be less spots available. In a more competitive application environment, which students are most likely to be rejected? An alphabet soup of factors go in to making such a judgment. Surely, there are SAT’s and AP’s and IB’s and so on. The easy answer is poor students. You know, the students who don’t have access to expensive test preparatory resources. Students who don’t enjoy good college counseling and other advantages students like those from Westview and Torrey Pines do. Scores on standardized tests are strongly tied to socio-economic status. If you look how the UC considers eligiability in application, scores on SAT II’s and SAT’s weigh very heavily, thus aiding the rich students who would do well on standardized tests. :
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/educators/counselors/resources/materials/e_index.pdf
In light of what I wrote yesterday, this proposal concerns me. The reasoning is fairly simple. Having a smaller student body in so-called “flagship” universities would benefit students of higher socio-economic status. Perhaps creating economic elite happens at private universities. However, I am not convinced that this is not the proper role of a public university. The UC system exists as a means of educating the people of California. And I do not believe that the public benefits from a narrowing of the students who are educated. The state as a whole benefits when more students have access to learning.
There near a 0% chance this letter will amount to anything. There is substantial support for most of the UC campuses. Eliminating any of them would be a long, painful and difficult process. However, it useful as difficult economic times force us to question what is important, to question the role of the University of California system. Perhaps it is not Merced or Santa Cruz who are out of line for not being “flagship” Universities, but Berkeley and LA for betraying their role. Instead of broadening the scope of state education, they have sought to emulate private institutions.
Economic Elitism
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/college-and-meritocracy
I was reading this afternoon. I do that occassionally. A friend of mine recommended the above article to me. Probably because I attend Princeton (mentioned in the article). Or maybe because he knew that I enjoy immflamatory opinions. The main point of the article states that while major universities (especially so-called “elite” universities) have made steps at improving racial diversity, they have done little to improve socio-economic diversity. While universities happily boast that they have so many African American students, so many Eskimo students and so on, they ignore the socio-economic statistics that state that their univerisites primarily serve the upper middle class, basically giving the shaft to poor students.
“In 2004 –2005 one-third of students at all four-year publicand private colleges received Pell Grant aid. Yet only 13% of the undergraduates at the country’s 50 wealthiest (and most selective) private colleges were Pell Grant recipients.v In 2004–2005 Pell Grant recipients comprised less than 10% of the student body at Harvard, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania”
http://www.princeton.edu/teacher/pupp/PUPP_GSF_White_Paper_Opening_Doors_02-09
It gives me a good feeling. I get fairly tired of hearing the administration say how happy and diverse the campus is. Its the same old speech of “look we have more black students… hooray! look we have more Native American students… hooray!”. When really, it is giving lip service to what is a very hegemonic and controlling system. It seems like a system of affirmative action that looks primarily at race would benefit students who are both underrepresented minorities and of middle to upper middle class. I mean, if you grew up on the mean streets of Rancho Penasquitos (the upper middle class community I grew up in), then there’s a good chance you were not facing the social and racial hardships that affirmative action is supposed to correct for.
What concerns me greatly is the worldview this generates for students. I see students who come from every corner of the world. So and so comes from South Korea, so and so comes from Jordan, so and so comes from France, so and so comes from Alaska… Aside from fairly superficial cultural differences, these international students are essentially like us. They primarily came from well off families, went to good schools and go their way into Princeton using a smattering of test prep and other application aids. While we are lead to believe that interacting with the apparent diversity of colors and practices is providing us with a stimulating and varied intellectual environment, instead we are just mingling with the elite of different countries. It’s fairly homogenous. Money wants to protect money. And I would expect the same from students who came from well off families and good schools. And it would be reflected in the political, social and cultural views of the student body. And if the student body has a similar economic background, you would expect a similar range of opinions.
In a system run by and sustained by the economic elite of a country, one would expect that the policies and activities of the system would be geared towards bolstering the interests of that elite.
Varsity Wisdom
The other day my mom provided me with an eye catching article in Vanity Fair about Harvard called “Rich Harvard, Poor Harvard”. A link can be found here :
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/06/harvard.html
Honestly speaking, most of the article wasn’t that interesting. Whoever was writing it was more concerned at the finger pointing of the various executives and leaders of Harvard’s endowment, which I do not give a flying fuck about. The jist of the article is as follows: 1) Harvard is losing a lot of money in its investments 2) Much of its investment are illiquid 3) Harvard has to cut back, such as stop offering hot breakfast to undergraduates. Princeton has the somewhat arbitrary distinction of not getting as butt fucked in the current recession, a distinction for which I cannot take any personal responsibility. My dad recommended that we should start the “Food for Harvard” program because poor students in Cambridge are starving because they are unable to get a hot breakfast.
Jokes aside, understand that I am not one of these mindless “School Spirited” drones that rabidly attacks anything dressed in crimson and blue. You know, I refuse to put on my swastika and march along with my classmates. To me, there is no significant difference between schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Penn, Stanford and Brown. The students come from the same circles, go to the same schools and join the same clubs. The only differences seem to be aesthetic. Hell, I’m color blind, I can barely tell between the school colors of some of these places.
Apparently the Orange Bubble is more potent that we originally thought. Princeton’s endowment is in slightly better condition than those of its peer institutions. Yet the world’s economic climate seems hardly stable and it would seem prudent to consider taking the proper precautions against future losses in the endowment.
You know, maybe this is a good thing. Tough economic times force the students to clearly define what the University’s purpose is and what activities, groups and clubs contribute to pursuing that end. Just as in people, when the money is plentiful, the students grow fat and indulgent. This is a chance to slice away what is not important. A University’s primary goal is to promote learning the student population and the world at large. Anything aside from this is a waste of University resources.
On this basis, I believe that we ought to immediately and completely cease University support for Princeton University’s Varsity Sports Program. We, as the student body, gain very little (if not nothing) from paying for the recruitment, training and continued maintenance of a small, unaccountable elite of Varsity athletes that supposedly represent us at other Universities. When I signed up to attend a University, I expected just that, a University. If I wanted to join a sports franchise, I would have done so. If I wanted to watch people play baseball or basketball, I could do that at San Diego at a much lower cost. I don’t want to get lost in the crowd; I don’t want to support the team; I came to learn.
Why do we pay for the recruitment of brawn when we should be paying to recruit brains. This is not to say that all varsity athletes are dumb brutes. But recruited athletes are chosen first for their muscles and athletics and second for their intellectual promise. Why do we pay millions to support our next quarterback, but hope that the next Nash or Einstein just shows up at our door? The latter have brought infinitely more pride and light to the world.
We now face a crunch of limited resources. And we all must ask ourselves what is important to us in a University. If you believe that Princeton ought to be a glorified sports franchise with its loyal mass of followers ready to pounce of the enemies of the black and orange, by all means, let it be. But if you, even naively, believe in the promise that a University supports the intellectual life and promise of its students, then you call for ending support for Princeton’s varsity sports.
Side note: In 1968 UC San Diego voted down its football program. The school has yet to fall into a heap of ruin. I respect a school with the courage to take a stand for learning shut down expensive distractions.
Tend Your Garden
I got a small bonsai tree today. I know fairly little about the art of keeping such a tree. My prefered type of plant to keep are cacti and succulents. Even during the hottest part of the San Diego summer, I can keep my aloe vera in full sun being generally ignored except for occassional water (and I emphasize occasional). One pot I planted about two years ago currently is attempting an escape as green tendrils creep over the walls of the vessel.
I generally dislike overly controlled/high maintenance forms of plant life. I really dislike the people who keep lush green lawns in arid environments. There isn’t much water in this area, note the naturally occurring shrubs on the hillsides.And yet some people keep and water their green, green lawns. Is your extra piece of vanity worth the extra hours of watering, trimming and feeding? No, I would prefer a rock garden or at least more better suited plants in my front yard. There is beauty allowing nature to take its course (plus you save a huge amount of water, a nontrivial effect given the current drought and population growth in southern California) I believe that my job in gardening is to provide room, water and sunlight. Other than that, my job is to leave the plant fucking alone.
When you let a plant grow on its own, uninhibited by your own desires, wants and rules, it can also be free from my inadequecies, weaknesses and limitations. And I have many. I need not a minor clone of myself in plant form, I want a different influence upon my life. Perhaps then I can learn something anew from the trees.
Many times when writers end a story with a moral, a prepackaged lesson condensed for the reader’s easy consumption. However, such a method traps the piece in an analytical cage. It cannot mean anymore than the writer puts in the picture. Many times when a parent raises a child with certain rules, a prepackaged lesson that seeks the generate a clone of the parents. The child is shackled and cannot grow beyond the limitations of the parents. I take each endeavor in life as a chance to cultivate a new garden in the backyard and minds of others.
Weird Dream
I had a weird dream last night. Weird by my standards:
I had just done ocean fishing with my dad, but we hadn’t had very much luck. We had only caught 1 fish and it was the fish that you catch right at the beginning on the trawl line. But we had a fish, so it wasn’t too bad.
We were cutting it up at home, and we cut off it’s head and it’s meaty insides looked like bread. It was kind of white-ish and instead of vessels, it looked like blood was being carried through the air holes in the bread. We cut some more, and we opened up it stomach and we found a ear of corn. But it wasn’t just in the stomach, it was mounted against the stomach wall sticking outward. And right below the stomach, my mom pointed out that you could see the kideny and could tell that the fish hadn’t gone to the bathroom before it had been caught. Which is weird, because the kidney perform that function in the body… and that’s not where the kidney is located in a fish…
Playing with Fire(flies)
I spent a few hours this evening reading a book in the lower branches of a favorite tree just outside of my room. When the light finally became to dim to read, I headed back to dorm, finding the constant luminance of my room a more conducive environment for reading. Yet while I was making my way through the grass, I noticed a faint spark among the darkened blades of grass. As a natural pyro, I immediately thought to a fire spark. But now, the ephemeral burst came from a lonely firefly, an aptly named insect indeed.
For anyone who has betrayed their parents warnings and played with matches understands the process. You strike the match against the flint and hope for the friction to spark into a small flame. This is never a sure process. Even with new matches and a good striker, even with years and years of experience, each match must past through a fateful moment, a turning point. It decided whether the spark will catch into a fire or fade into nothing. It is the difference between light and dark, day and night, knowledge and ignorance.
People to this day understand the metaphorical relationship between a spark and an idea. Many of us have had “flashes” or “bursts” of insight. But these are rare. We spend most of our days artificially enlightened by blubs or flames already set up for us. I flip a light switch with no suspect as to whether the light will turn on or not. And so we are caught in an inescapably determined future.
I enjoy my fiery nocturnal friends. In each of them is the flash of insight or moment of genius towards which we all ideally strive. It is a moment of completely uncertainty, as the spark perchance leads us somewhere new. And how can unknown be certain to us? At the moment they shine through the dark, they junction between a failed attempt or a moment of insight. While they invariably fade back to darkness, I chase them anyway. It is an uncertain leader, but I know, respect and admire the potential of a spark.
News: News sux
I keep a feed on my home page that gives me what they believe to be the top headlines of the day. I must stress “they believe”, as I am wary anytime an outside organization does such explicit and blatant filtering of the news. I did this because at one time I believe that it would provide a font of wisdom into the workings of the world at large, elevating my view of the world.
That was an epic fail.
There are a number of reasons that I do not take the most popular news sources very seriously. For one, they tend to be owned by large conglomerate corporations. And large corporations, by definition, have one goal: make the most money by whatever means possible. And if this means manipulation at the expense of journalistic integrity, then so be it.
And this doesn’t have to be an explicit lieing. One of the most annoying, yet effective, strategies is for news organizations to focus on completely idiocitic and distracting issues. I swear, in the last 4 hours, I have seen about 3 different stories come up about the sex scandal regarding South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. You know what, I don’t fucking care if he sodomized with dozen prostitutesa hot poker while snorting cocaine off the horse’s nutsack. It’s not a political issue in any shape or form. It doesn’t affect policy, and it doesn’t affect stated role of goverment of bettering citizen’s lives (I must stress “stated role” in this context).
I strongly suspect that news organizations focus on distracting issues such as sex scandals and the break up of “Jon and Kate” because it allows corporations to continue to get along without public scruitinty. If everyone is crying because of some side issue, if news reporters are too busy trying to ask why a govener would have sex with a woman in Brazil, then these people don’t pay attention to issues that matter. Stop asking President Obama why he smokes. Fuck, you should be grilling him on health care, on troops in Iraq, on troops in every other part of the world, on climate change, on worker’s rights, on renewable energy, on corporate influence in the goverment. Why is the richest country in the world unable to help its poor, educate its young and care for its old? He should be reaching for something stronger than tobacco.
Summer rain
Summer rain makes my day, the really hard stuff bombs the ground and drums the window. I spend my time indoors, not dancing among the puddles. But I still appreciate summer’s song, for it is a catchy tune.
