I must go on record as opposing the, as yet undrafted, policy of requiring its tour players to learn English. Of course, the announcement of the policy was clumsily handled, but it would have caused outrage no matter how the public was told.
It's a classic case where a defensible result is badly served by poor planning. Golf, by itself, is just a sport. But professional golf is also entertainment and marketing. I'm sure all of the players on the tour want to increase the League's profits, and get a larger share for themselves. In fact, reports say that many of the non-English speaking players approve of the policy. They know that their marketability for endorsements can be enhanced by speaking Englsh. Maria Sharapova is a prime example. And, to its credit, the League has been providing what seems to be voluntary language instruction for some time.
But the policy rankles, inevitably, because it imposes a discriminatory barrier to one's appreciation of the sport. It's supposed to be about excellence, not salesmanship. Why should the LPGA even hint that it may not have the best competitors on its tour just because they don't have the highest Q scores? Believe me, if the public loses its confidence in a sport's commitment to competitive achievement, at the highest level, the fans will disappear, and no amount of marketing razzle-dazzle, in English, Korean or any other language, will bring them back.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Real Worth of a BA Degree
Controversial sociologist Charles Murray had an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal this week (Wed., 8/13/08). It brought into question the actual value of a bachelor's degree, and whether a different standard of achievement (he posed a national certifying exam) would be better.
I think Murray is right. I've felt that the bachelors has outlived its usefulness for some time. A new system, perhaps his certification exam idea, perhaps another paradigm, is likely to appear soon.
But he ignored the real value of the bachelors. No, not for the young folks getting the degree. The real beneficiaries are their parents.
Let's look at the situation. It's High School graduation, and young Tommy and Jennifer are eighteen and sitting on top of the world. But are they ready to move out and support themselves? Not likely. What job will they get that allows them to maintain a decent independent lifestyle, stay safe and healthy and also seek and, hopefully, find their ideal life partner?
Are they ready for the career that will set them on the road to the American Dream?
Not on your life. Even in a growing economy, they'd just get an entry-level job, nothing more. With the expense of a car, rent, clothes, entertainment and food, their credit cards would max out fast. And they'd have to live like pigs in the bargain.
No, they'll never leave the comforts of home just for that. So they decide to stay home and prepare for independence...at some later date, just not now.
So everybody's happy, right? Mom and dad won't be losing their darling after all.
But this also presents a little problem.
What, you may ask, could that possibly be? After all, look how much money the family saves by eliminating college altogether.
But some things may be more important than money, such as ....sanity? I give the arrangement three months, at the most. After that, the stay-at-home kids will suddenly find themselves buried under college application forms.
That's because the post high school stay-at-home lifestyle may be fine for eighteen year olds, but it's torture for their parents. After all, Tommy and Jennifer will get part-time jobs at the mall, if they're lucky, but then what? They're going to go bananas, that's what! They'll hang out with their buddies and girlfriends, drive like lunatics all hours of the day or night, disappear for days at a time, often be delivered by the police to the front door. And that's just the squeaky clean kids! The ones who fall in with the "wrong crowd" will make them look like angels.
No, after three months of this hell, mortgaging the family estate to get their darlings into a nice, safe institution like a four-year college will be paradise on earth.
But if you ask mom and dad if that's the real reason why they're throwing away half their retirement fund, they will forcefully deny it. They will say how necessary the degree is to get into Wharton for that MBA. How the kids will mature into responsible, thinking adults from the experience. After all, dormitory life encourages young people to create lifelong friendships based on a healthy appetite for knowledge and self-improvement. Oh, yes. It's worth every penny.
And I'm sure that mom and dad will never regret it, no matter what the cost.
So let's sing the praises of the bachelors degree. And if Tommy and Jennifer actually learn something in those four years, count that as a bonus.
I think Murray is right. I've felt that the bachelors has outlived its usefulness for some time. A new system, perhaps his certification exam idea, perhaps another paradigm, is likely to appear soon.
But he ignored the real value of the bachelors. No, not for the young folks getting the degree. The real beneficiaries are their parents.
Let's look at the situation. It's High School graduation, and young Tommy and Jennifer are eighteen and sitting on top of the world. But are they ready to move out and support themselves? Not likely. What job will they get that allows them to maintain a decent independent lifestyle, stay safe and healthy and also seek and, hopefully, find their ideal life partner?
Are they ready for the career that will set them on the road to the American Dream?
Not on your life. Even in a growing economy, they'd just get an entry-level job, nothing more. With the expense of a car, rent, clothes, entertainment and food, their credit cards would max out fast. And they'd have to live like pigs in the bargain.
No, they'll never leave the comforts of home just for that. So they decide to stay home and prepare for independence...at some later date, just not now.
So everybody's happy, right? Mom and dad won't be losing their darling after all.
But this also presents a little problem.
What, you may ask, could that possibly be? After all, look how much money the family saves by eliminating college altogether.
But some things may be more important than money, such as ....sanity? I give the arrangement three months, at the most. After that, the stay-at-home kids will suddenly find themselves buried under college application forms.
That's because the post high school stay-at-home lifestyle may be fine for eighteen year olds, but it's torture for their parents. After all, Tommy and Jennifer will get part-time jobs at the mall, if they're lucky, but then what? They're going to go bananas, that's what! They'll hang out with their buddies and girlfriends, drive like lunatics all hours of the day or night, disappear for days at a time, often be delivered by the police to the front door. And that's just the squeaky clean kids! The ones who fall in with the "wrong crowd" will make them look like angels.
No, after three months of this hell, mortgaging the family estate to get their darlings into a nice, safe institution like a four-year college will be paradise on earth.
But if you ask mom and dad if that's the real reason why they're throwing away half their retirement fund, they will forcefully deny it. They will say how necessary the degree is to get into Wharton for that MBA. How the kids will mature into responsible, thinking adults from the experience. After all, dormitory life encourages young people to create lifelong friendships based on a healthy appetite for knowledge and self-improvement. Oh, yes. It's worth every penny.
And I'm sure that mom and dad will never regret it, no matter what the cost.
So let's sing the praises of the bachelors degree. And if Tommy and Jennifer actually learn something in those four years, count that as a bonus.
Friday, August 1, 2008
My Pebble in the Obama Avalanche
Yes, it's time for my two cents on Barack Obama.
What prompts me to write this is Jodi Kantor's article in the N.Y. Times(7/30/08) on Obama's career as law professor at the University of Chicago.
The article portrays an unusually confident, independent and candid teacher, one whose unstuffy and intellectually challenging demeanor made him very popular with students. On the other hand, his colleagues learned that he was reluctant to take a stand on an issue if it might reflect badly on his career in the future.
Does that mean he was already dreaming of the presidency? Yes, but not for the job he's applying for today.
I have a master's and a law degree, so I've been around academics for a while. He doesn't seem to like the demands of scholarship, but holding court in the classroom is another story. His rapid rise in the "higher education industry" is remarkable, and, don't forget, it happened before his career in politics.
What I'm getting at is simply this. I think that a person's first triumph lays the groundwork for his future goals. I don't care what he might have said in kindergarten, his manner and approach to problem solving fit perfectly in the academic setting, not the arenas of Washington. Yes, it's the presidency he wanted, but of Harvard University or the University of Chicago. It's only when it became apparent that this goal was not reachable - possibly because he couldn't cultivate the support of the right power brokers - that he chose President of the United States...as a substitute.
Maybe he thinks he'll have a better shot as an Ex-President?
What prompts me to write this is Jodi Kantor's article in the N.Y. Times(7/30/08) on Obama's career as law professor at the University of Chicago.
The article portrays an unusually confident, independent and candid teacher, one whose unstuffy and intellectually challenging demeanor made him very popular with students. On the other hand, his colleagues learned that he was reluctant to take a stand on an issue if it might reflect badly on his career in the future.
Does that mean he was already dreaming of the presidency? Yes, but not for the job he's applying for today.
I have a master's and a law degree, so I've been around academics for a while. He doesn't seem to like the demands of scholarship, but holding court in the classroom is another story. His rapid rise in the "higher education industry" is remarkable, and, don't forget, it happened before his career in politics.
What I'm getting at is simply this. I think that a person's first triumph lays the groundwork for his future goals. I don't care what he might have said in kindergarten, his manner and approach to problem solving fit perfectly in the academic setting, not the arenas of Washington. Yes, it's the presidency he wanted, but of Harvard University or the University of Chicago. It's only when it became apparent that this goal was not reachable - possibly because he couldn't cultivate the support of the right power brokers - that he chose President of the United States...as a substitute.
Maybe he thinks he'll have a better shot as an Ex-President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)