Alas, another sleepless night for me, friends.
I found some more coverage of our esteemed donor, Mr. Robert A. Day and the allegations that he may be facing insider trading charges. The coverage has made the rounds, with the latest appearing in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
That piece is the first to get anyone from Claremont McKenna College -- "a spokeswoman" -- on record, but they essentially say that they have no further information at this time. (Why the Deans seem so quick to email us about alarming things and shenanigans that took place over the break but so slow to put something that might affect the financial future of our college is another matter worthy of discussion for another day.)
As rumors dance about the Hub and Collins, it's worth pondering that perhaps this isn't necessarily bad news. After all, doesn't it draw attention to our beloved C.M.C.?
ConfusedMinority tried to make the case to me yesterday for why insider trading isn't so much of a big deal and how the prosecution standards are must stricter in Europe than they are in the U.S. He cited an Economist blog piece citing the brilliant Milton Friedman so I listened up. I vaguely followed his argument, but maybe someone more versed in the economic thought can flesh that out for me.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Alas, another sleepless night for me, friends.
Claremont Insider joins the pig pile!
I am not a pig, but I'll let my readers judge.
The Claremont Insider joins the obligatory mocking of Dean Deb Woods. This story is far from over.
When will we get our apology? Granted, I don't want it to this level. That's just cartoonish.
My co-Gov 20er, Andrew Bluebond, writes in the latest incarnation of The Claremont Portside about the newer, better, Civilization 10 course that's in development.
My real thoughts about Civilization 10 can best be expressed with a series of four letter words. They are particularly distasteful and unprintable on this blog. That's not so much a reflection of the teacher -- I like her -- or the students -- I like them--but it is an expression of my dislike of the course material. By trying to be politically correct and cater to all political and cultural masters, the content is much watered down and becomes a sort of intellectual goo, the philosophical consistency of which looks (and tastes!) much like that paste you used in pre-school.
The reforms, while seeking to promote choice, seem nice to me, but only at first glance. Yes more professors are signing up and yes, more choices are offered, but the choices still seem too vague, too watery to return my pragmatic self. In fact, I don't much care whether Leo Strauss himself rose up from the dead and started dusting off the chalk board.
I understand the philosophy that Civ 10 is like death and taxes -- one of those inevitabilities of life that you must suck up and try to avoid, but submit to anyways, but don't we already have enough G.E.s? As a government major, I have twelve G.E.s that I have to neutralize if I want my diploma. Do I really need another?
Dutifully I comply with this regulation on my education. I submit to it, not out of love, but out of fear of non-compliance. Dutifully Dean of Faculty Gregory Hess appointed a sub-committee. Here's how Bluebond describes it.
Six months ago, he asked Associate Dean of Faculty and Professor Amy Kind to chair an ad-hoc subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee to see if the Civilizations program could or should be restructured. On Jan. 24, the Curriculum Committee heard the proposal that resulted and passed it unanimously.So yes, it took six months to come up with these topics, which are supposedly more structured.
- Autobiography and the Self
- Myth, Modernity, and Beyond
- The Liberal Arts in Theory and Practice
- Life, Death, and Meaning
- Socratic Questions
- State, Society, and the Individual in Asia
- Trial and Ordeal in the Ancient World
- War and Society
- Race and Empire in America
- Ideas of Church and State
- The Self in Western Culture
Here's what I would have asked them had I been invited to the sub-committee:
Ladies and gentlemen, have you considered banning it? If not, why not?
Here's the paragraph in question.
[A] recent study by Jeff Anderson and Gary Smith from Pomona College shows that America's most admired companies also have a tendency to beat the market. Anderson and Smith analyzed the returns of Fortune's list of the 10 most admired companies from 1983 to 2004. They found that a portfolio of these stocks outperformed the S&P 500 by "a substantial and statistically significant margin."I wonder why that is. Commentators! Explain why it might be so.