|
|
2-24-98 Dennis discussed a 2-18-98 article from the New York Times on grade inflation at Princeton. DP says that his lowest grade at Columbia came from his class in International Economics, taught by Dr. Charles Isuai (sp?). At Princeton, the 'Gentleman's C' Would Not Seem So Gentlemanly By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD PRINCETON, N.J. -- To their great relief, one of the first lessons anxious freshmen learn here at Princeton University is that it is virtually impossible to flunk a class. Technically, the "F" still exists. And every year the dean asks 25 or so undergraduates out of 4,588 to leave temporarily because of bad grades. But in reality, as a report to the faculty and administration from the dean of the college earlier this month showed, students who put in a so-so effort increasingly get good grades. The "gentleman's C" is not only alive and well but appears to be evolving into the "generous B" or even an A, with little distinction between the good and the excellent. "For most people, if you are getting A's, it means you are doing good work," said Tucker Culbertson, 20, a Princeton junior majoring in English. "If you go to class and participate and write a semi-intelligible paper you get an A." The report on grade inflation, which the administration hopes will cause some soul-searching among the faculty, comes somewhat belatedly to Princeton, several years after other selective institutions around the country tried to curtail soaring grade point averages. But if their experiences are any indication, Princeton undergraduates can rest assured that their 3.4 GPAs are safe.
Dennis Prager views grade inflation as an example of America's war on standards. Because bad grades may make the recipients feel bad, therefore we are loathe to give bad grades. DP says that even while he struggled through classes in Physics, Geology etc that he had no interest in, he never supported the dropping of such standards. Dennis says that while at Columbia, studying International Relations at graduate school, he was required to take Physics. This sounds strange. P says he feels conflicted between the desire to make his children feel good, and the desire to instill in them the desire for excellence. What if his kids show him mediocre work? Should he praise it to make them feel good or should he only praise their excellent work? P. mentioned the opposition of deaf activist groups to the Cochlea Implant which can make many deaf children hear. The activist groups opposed the implant because it implied that hearing was superior to not hearing.
Though Dennis began today's show in a "frisky mood, flipping out," as he likes to say, he descended. DP did not seem to listen deeply to several of his callers, and P came across, at times, as curt. One caller challenged Prager's giving responsibility for the decline in standards to liberalism. P hung up on him. P said that he had not mentioned liberalism once in that day's show and the charge was unfair. I don't remember if Prager mentioned liberalism or not in today's show, but it was certainly an undercurrent that the Left was responsible for the decline in standards. He has said this explicitly in past shows, so Prager's hanging up on today's challenge did not seem fair. Because Prager upholds excellence as a preeminent value, it is fair to hold his radio show up to that same standard. Today's show exemplified another troubling aspect of his radio show - his tendency to not see news events in their own context, but rather through the prism of his oft-stated values. DP devoted two hours today to a theme he has hammered frequently - the decline of standards. The NYT article on Princeton seemed incidental to Prager's preaching on the decline of standards. Last Friday, Prager spent time on the arrest of two men in Nevada for possessing biological weapons. It turns out that the men did not own any dangerous anthrax or equivalent. The facts later showed some of the things Prager said, to be wrong. On the third hour, Prager discussed the movie Titanic. He loved it. As opposed to Boogie Nights, which he found boring and unhuman. Prager said many of his friends, and his son, had seen it many times, and that he would like to see it again, as soon as he recovered from his first screening. Prager found it so powerful that he could barely sleep the night after seeing Titanic. His wife Fran cried during it. P. said it provided an excellent lesson in hubris. The Titanic came at a time when many people believed in the inevitability of human progress. A belief dealt severe blows by the following two world wars. P. honored director James Cameron's commitment to truth. P. did not mention the film's historical inaccuracies or its Marxist theme. Prager told a caller that one reason the $200 billion price tag did not bother him, as opposed to Michael Jordan's salary, which Prager claimed put professional sports out of reach for the average person, as opposed to the moderate price of movies. P. is wrong. Pro sports are available virtually free to the masses through TV. And two. Increase in the cost of supply is irrelevant to price. Price is determined by the intersection of supply and demand. A female caller said she felt empowered by the movie's glorification of love. Prager said that he hoped that Hollywood learned that you don't need blood and gratuitous sex to make a successful movie. [Incidentally, the top ten grossers in movie history show almost no sex, though the most profitable film of all time is a porno - Deep Throat.] Caller Bryan appreciated the way the movie renewed interest in history. P. asked caller if they were made nervous by the brief nudity. Every one said no. A caller related the true story about the Jewish couple who died hugging each other. They were rich, but chose to let others in their place in a lifeboat. Their act helped combat antisemitism in America.
|
|