More vagueries

It's loose accusations such as this one which diminish a blogger's credibility:

Self-esteem that is earned by hard work or good deeds is likely to be more valuable to the individual and far more likely to induce good behavior than are these modern educational programs that try to build self-esteem without requiring either hard work or good deeds. (italics added.)

Now there's a political thought and one with which I couldn't possibly disagree; of course I couldn't possibly agree either -- I have no idea to what The Professor refers. Would he let one of his students get away with such a vague assertion in class? I doubt it.

...modern educational programs that try to build self-esteem without requiring either hard work or good deeds.

Huh? What? Please, some specifics rather than these broad-brush claims without substance. Maybe such programs exist; maybe they don't. As a person outside the educational world I wonder whether he is simply blowing hot air or does he have something specific in mind?  You know I might very well agree with him if he got down to details, if he actually has any details. I know that judges like the parties before them to offer facts. So too for law students in class. Why should not a Law Professor also be required to present his case with specifics? Why not indeed.

Comments

[A.C. Douglas]

This" taught self-esteem" idiocy (and the very idea itself, prima facie, can't be otherwise described except as idiocy) that's been inculcated into every facet of primary public school education in this country over the past 15-20 years is so widespread, and so famously infamous that the writer can be excused for not providing any details as he presumes (as would I) everyone already knows what he's talking about, and proffering details at this point would be little more than tediously superfluous.

Regards (and a Happy New Year! to you),

ACD

[David Sucher]

I don't think it's quite that simple, ACD. This is not some joke where one person states the first few words and then everyone starts to laugh havinmg heard the joke so often. This is serious business and "The Professor" is not treating it as serious with a throw-away line like "modern eductaional programs," as if we all know what it means. I know from my own experience with law school -- and I went back as an adult so it wasn't all that long ago -- there is nothing frivilous there and the only way to impress the kind of law school professors I know was with real performance. The kind of casual assumption of facts not in evidence offered by Bainbridge wouldn't cut it in a law school class - unless maybe for the Professor.

[A.C. Douglas]

But this isn't law school, and the man's not presenting a legal brief, nor is he making a legal case analysis, David, both of which require the sort of detail you're demanding of him here.

And I think you're quite wrong when you write, "This is not some joke where one person states the first few words and then everyone starts to laugh havinmg heard the joke so often." That pretty much describes the case of this idiot "taught self-esteem" business being an integral part of the educational programs in our public primary schools these days.

ACD

[clew]

I met self-esteem curricula *and* the New Math as a student in St Louis. Heck, the New Math did what it's supposed to, to me, although not to most people...

Anyway, my view of 'taught self-esteem' is mellowed by my memory of what the old diehard teachers were like to the poor kids and the black kids and the immigrant kids. At least one of those teachers was noticeably happy to point out every single thing one of these kids didn't know, and to explain that it was to be expected that they didn't know it, and that they should sit at the low table and count bottlecaps. And on paper her actions might have looked pragmatic: you sort the children by what they can do and use your scarce time on the ones who are likeliest to profit by it. But one of those kids, I'm pretty sure, could do harder arithmetic than the rest of the class; only in writing, and with funny number forms.

The kind teachers told us when we did something wrong, or even when we did it right but they believed we could do it better, and I know I worked much harder for them. Self-confidence and achievement are mutually reinforcing, but out of the womb we're none of us achievers and everyone with a lever needs a place on which to stand. The lucky get it from their family before they get into school.

The last thing that pisses me off is that when anyone is as rude to powerful conservatives as the old system regularly was to the unlucky-born, they set up a great hue and cry and whinge. All the useful parts of 'politically correct' are accessible from 'politeness', and if the principles of politeness had been held to in the first place we wouldn't have this pullullating series of backlashes. Feh.

*****

now open for anecdata about how bad 'taught self-esteem' fumfuh gets.

[David Sucher]

ACD:
You limit the issue to "public primary schools," but that's not how Bainbridge framed it. In fact as I read back, his anecdote specifically places the issue of flawed "modern education" within law school, where the students, btw, are usually in their twenties, at least.

But beyond that, there are two issues here.

Issue # 1. Is The Professor "on trial" in a court and does he have some sort of duty to back up and illustrate his statements?

Of course not. This is the blogosphere. Bainbridge has no duty to document, illustrate, back-up etc anything. Within the laws of libel/slander etc he can (like everyone else in the blogosphere, such as yours truly) spew forth pretty-much any sort of bilge he desires; and I can't see that there is anything wrong with that.

Issue # 2. Does making a broad-brush statement -- and a statement central to his post -- without the slightest attempt to illustrate, explain, document it increase a writer's credibility?

My opinion is "no." That's my why post specifically referred to "credibility." People with positions of authority -- and a person who specifically uses his position of authority as a Professor in his on-line personna -- shouldn't coast on that authority unchallenged. Such people of institutional authority have a particular responsibility to document and back up their statements because they have built-in credibility due to their prestigious position; and I kid you not: Law School professors are known to be extremely bright, usually among the brightest of their class and the best of them write articles that sawy appellate judges; it's big deal stuff. So what I'm saying is very simple (and I am not reaching the issue of "self-esteem" at all): even "Professors" must follow the rule we learned in grade school: "show your work." It's the first lesson in elementary school arithmetic, as I recall. And the notion is applicable in every subject, certainly in the law and society. Don't just assert a view; show how you get there. Otherwise it is a mere assertion and worth nothing.

For all I know -- I said so in the post and I was not kidding -- I might well agree with Bainbridge about "modern education" if he offered even a few examples. But the throwaway casualness with which he made what was a political point required followup; I am not Larry King.

Clew:
Is that all it is? "Self-esteem" is about manners? So "The Professor" et al are, if I understand you correctly, upset by teachers being polite? That's a yuck; it certainly never got to law school.

[TM Lutas]

The flip side of self-esteem education could have been readily apparent to those arguing against work requirements for welfare. Do I really need to dig up chapter and verse how work requirements were supposed to humiliate single mothers and drive them into destitution?

I suspect that Prof. Bainbridge views work training programs that never require actual work as fitting in with his view of useless self-esteem educational programs. Fortunately, the success of federal welfare reform has made such programs much rarer than they were a decade ago.

[David Sucher]

"Do I really need to dig up chapter and verse how work requirements were supposed to humiliate single mothers and drive them into destitution? "

Yup. You do,

[clew]

It hadn't occurred to me that he was talking about law school programs (won't the market decide??), as I generally hear people complaining about 'self-esteem' programs aimed at groups with less self-esteem than law students.

I do stand by my point that the wrong the original 'self-esteem' measures were meant to prevent was a failure of politeness and of policy; but it doesn't seem relevant now.

[A.C. Douglas]

ACD: You limit the issue to "public primary schools," but that's not how Bainbridge framed it. In fact as I read back, his anecdote specifically places the issue of flawed "modern education" within law school, where the students, btw, are usually in their twenties, at least.

No sir. Bainbridge does no such thing. Please read again what he wrote. The anecdote he relates has his "touchy-feely" colleague bemoaning the fact that the building of self-esteem in law school students is largely *absent*. Bainbridge then concludes by making his remark about "modern educational programs" where the teaching and inculcation of self-esteem is pervasive. Those "modern educational programs," as I've now twice before remarked, are a ubiquitous and infamous part of our public primary school programs, and have been so for the past 15-20 years, the principal details of which are so widely known that they're much like the "joke where one person states the first few words and then everyone starts to laugh having heard the joke so often."

For all I know -- I said so in the post and I was not kidding -- I might well agree with Bainbridge about 'modern education' if he offered even a few examples. But the throwaway casualness with which he made what was a political point required followup.

It required neither examples nor follow-up. I repeat yet again, the lunacy is far too well known to require either at this point in time.

Have you tried Googling this subject, say "public education self-esteem" (without the quotes)? You really should, you know. Shouldn't take you too long to research. That search string brings up only, oh, 1,000,000 hits or so.

ACD

[David Sucher]

ACD ignores both hiw own words and the words of "Professor" Bainbridge's post. But since that is to be expected, I won't spend any time setting him right.

His suggestion about Googling "public education self-esteem" is either meant humously or concedes the issue (i.e did Bainbridge really knows had anything in mind?) but in any case I will thank ACD for making a good attempt at a lucid remark.

[TM Lutas]

A quick google on the self-esteem movement turns up better than 650k hits and judging by the first page, a good half of them are articles pounding on it in the same sort of terms that Prof. Bainbridge was using, often with a great deal more evidence.

Here are some early articles:
http://www.landiss.com/teaching/forget-self-esteem.htm
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/35/1728_91573
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3801
http://www.emmitsburg.net/grotto/father_jack/2002/self_esteem_selflessness_and_freedom.htm

Feel free to dig as deep into those hundreds of thousands of pages, there's plenty of material on how self-esteem without hard work is a bad thing and how children are suffering from this false self-esteem in very real ways.

[David Sucher]

TM,
It seem to me that you may be missing my point.
I'll say it once again:
I am not doubting that self-esteem should/must be based on something.
What I doubt is that Bainbridge (or anyone) can produce examples of "...modern educational programs that try to build self-esteem without requiring either hard work or good deeds."
Prove me wrong; but it sounds to me like nothing more than conservatives' wet-dream & fantasy.

[Kai Jones]

How about children's writing programs that emphasize getting it all down no matter what the spelling and punctuation looks like, even if there are no verbs or other incomplete sentences, and praising the kids for being creative? At my sons' public elementary school they didn't even *start* teaching spelling, punctuation, and grammar until long after they'd taught creative writing, and the teachers were very specific about how it would crush the poor liddle spirits to insist on conventional spelling. That's building self esteem based on existence, not hard work or achievement.

[David Sucher]

OK Kai.
Finally. Thank you. Something specific and which starts to sound like a bad program.
(And I say "starts" only because, frankly, this is obviously such a politicized subject and I am so ignorant of the facts on the ground that I have to be cautious in accepting one person's characterization as accurate; I would be curious to know how proponents of the system under which your sons are educated would respond.)
How did you deal with the situation?