Musings of MikeTheActuary » Education

On Online Education

MikeTheActuary — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:10:00 +0000

A tweet from @meepbopeep brought my attention to this report from NBC Nightly News:

The story caught my attention for a few reasons:

1. It’s actually, in a way, old news. I’m aware of some small-town high schools in Alabama which have been using online/distance learning technologies for years, to help bring more challenging coursework to schools which lack the student pool and/or finances to support them.

2. I’ve actually been a fan of distance learning since I first became acquainted with the concept, about 20 years ago when I was introduced to the internet. Considering all the times growing up where I was frustrated with the slow pace of classes…well, the notion of distance learning has a certain appeal to me.

3. More recently, within the American actuarial profession, there has been a bit of fuss raised over “Future Education Methods”, most recently framed as a way that certain rigorous university programs could be used in lieu of passing actuarial exams on the path towards earning actuarial credentials.

While I’m still opposed to that particular idea, I have for years thought that online/distance learning would be a wonderful reform to the actuarial exam process. I’ve questioned whether self-study exams are really the best way to educate actuaries. I’ve speculated that online classes could be a way to more effectively educate prospective actuaries, while maintaining the rigor of the system.

I probably was a bit before my time in thinking such thoughts (and admittedly they could be a bit of disgruntlement on my part, since self-study for an all-or-nothing exam isn’t really my forte). I’ve quietly welcomed the introduction of modules, first on the life side, and soon on the casualty side, as being sorta/kinda close to the education system I’d love to see the American profession adopt. But I still wonder if more could be done in this regard.

Talk a few colleges into giving credit for an SOA/CAS-sponsored online class, perhaps even collaborating in providing material and manpower, and you’ve got a better FEM proposal right there.

Science Quote du Jour

MikeTheActuary — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:07:14 +0000

From a Gawker.com story on nuclear researchers at Los Alamos accidentally blowing up a building:

Although no one was hurt, a POGO source puts the damage at around $3 million. We’re going to say it: That was $3 million of taxpayer funds well-spent. Forget those stem cell thingies. Blow up a couple buildings every month and we’ll have high school students flooding science classes like they were Jonas Brothers concerts.

The 2010 agenda for proving American education, ladies and gentlemen: blow s— up.

A Week-Ending Chop Suey

MikeTheActuary — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:12:00 +0000

Between travel and work I haven’t had much time to do much recreational reading or writing. But to clear out the inbox right quick, I give you: Chop Suey:

Over in Europe, Business Insurance mentions that the increased capital requirements for insurers proposed under Solvency II standards could have the side effect of reducing capacity for catastrophe, excess, and long-tailed casualty lines of insurance.
In New Orleans, the Times-Picayune reports that a federal judge found the Army Corps of Engineers grossly negligent in its work on the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, contributing the the Great Flood of New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. Three households and a business were awarded $700,000 in damages, and the door was opened a bit wider for the damage claims of an additional 100,000 claimants. Total damages sought, if I recall correctly, were $3,014,170,389,176,410 (or $3 quadrillion, “with a ‘q’”).
CBS relayed word from the Treasury that the national debt has finally crossed the $12 trillion mark ($12,031,299,186,290.07 as of 3pm EST, on 17 November). That figure ($38,974.34 per American) is big, even if it’s only a tiny fraction of the damage claims against the Corps of Engineers.
Also on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog reminded us of yet another game in health care financing which was not addressed in the House health care bill – balance billing. The short version is that heath plans generally base reimbursement on “usual and customary” rates, which are less than the list prices many medical providers charge. Unless the insurer has an agreement with the medical provider to forgive the difference, patients are on the hook for the balance. I’ll refrain from rambling here about unreasonably low UCR’s, ludicrously high list prices, and how both might aggravate the problem of medical cost inflation.
The Volokh Conspiracy saw an interesting article exploring the idea that a federal law making health care mandatory might be unconstitutional not because of a violation of the Bill of Rights, or the non-enumeration of that authority, but because the possible mechanism of imposing fines could be a breach of Article I, section 9 of the Constitution. (The 16th Amendment, which revised Congress’ authority to tax, only extended to legalizing the direct taxation of income.) I don’t think opponents to health care reform should rely on that argument either, but it is an intriguing line of thought.
The big political news story of the week was, of course, the introduction of the Senate’s health reform bill. The key differences between the Senate and the House bill seem to be its funding source (tax on Cadillac plans, 5% surcharge on elective cosmetic surgery, and an increase on the Medicare payroll tax for high-income employees), a different treatment of abortion (rather than a prohibition of non-emergency abortion in subsidized plans, a firewalling of subsidy funds away from the procedure), and the opt-out provision for individual states opposed to the public option. The health insurance trade association has naturally pointed out the impact of the Cadillac plan tax on individual and small group health premiums.
Back in my old hometown, the Memphis City Schools is one of three school systems to have received a rather large grant from the Gates foundation to improve teacher training and pay. The Commercial Appeal article mentions that pay would be merit/skill-based, with the best teachers potentially earning 6-figure salaries, and that teachers could be dismissed for subpar performance. The article, however, is silent on how they got the teachers’ union to go along with the plan.
Fox News (please forgive the source) featured an article discussing efforts underway in the United Nations to push for a global treaty obliging signers to pass laws prohibiting blasphemy. The United States, where most folks regardless of political persuasion still hold the freedom of speech almost sacrosanct, is opposing the effort and wouldn’t sign such a treaty anyway. The Fox News article gives a few examples (admittedly Middle East-focused) of how such a law could be abused. I share the concerns about censorship, and wish that the world could be civilized enough that good taste would keep blasphemy in check. Besides, some organizations have adequately demonstrated that intellectual property laws can be an effective tool when satisfaction through the courts is required.
Der Spiegel was one of a few mainstream media outlets noting that global temperatures haven’t behaved according to Al Gore’s hockey stick. I wonder if we’re within a few years of my fears of global warming activists’ hype doing more harm than good being realized. (Recall that I’m in favor of long-term planning for climate change – natural or man-made – and for reducing the harm inflicted by civilization on the environment, but I think activists are probably caught up in hype and a bit of junk science, and a backlash is coming if/when the predictions of doom fail to manifest as quickly as warned.)
And finally, back here in Connecticut, CT New Junkie reports that the state has signed a contract with a Subway restaurant franchiser and others to renovate the 23 service areas on the Connecticut Turnpike, and the Merritt and Cross Parkways. Given that other states are closing rest areas due to funding issues, raising the question of whether rest areas are even needed any more…well, perhaps a better question is whether it’s appropriate to maintain the virtual prohibition of services at interstate rest areas in most of the country.

The President’s Speech to Schoolchildren

MikeTheActuary — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:54:01 +0000

So, one of the political circuses this past week has been radio talk show hosts and the political blogosphere being all a-tizzy of which school districts will or won’t relay Obama’s speech to American schoolchildren tomorrow…or about those parents who may keep their children out of school to avoid exposure to the President’s indoctrination.

The text of the speech isn’t being subjected to the usual embargo, and is available in advance from the White House website. Here’s a sample of the indoctrination:

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

That’s the sort of message that it wouldn’t matter whether it were Obama, Bush, Clinton, or Nixon delivering the speech. It’s a great message to give to kids at the start of school.

Now, maybe it’s worthwhile to wonder about the appropriateness of usurping an hour out of a school day for a Presidential address. And, given the state of conspiracy paranoia around the edges of American political culture these days, perhaps it’s not too surprising to find wingnuts on one side of the political aisle or the other (or both) fearing political indoctrination.

But could we now have a bit of sanity, please?

(I know, I’m being naïve again.)

A Bit Of Week-Ending Chop Suey

MikeTheActuary — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:40:00 +0000

Even after purging out topics which, while I was distracted with earning a paycheck, either burned out or were discussed to death elsewhere online, there are still enough items worthy of mentioning to merit a “chop suey” post:

The Sun-Sentinel’s House Keys blog mentioned that Florida Insurance Commissioner McCarty has been making the rounds, touting how regulation has protected Florida consumers from massive rate hikes in recent years. I can buy the perception of that particular benefit…but I don’t hear too many folks outside the industry mentioning how now-extremely-strict scrutiny discourages the introduction of new insurance products to the state.
Presumably McCarty’s reappearance is the result of work being done on “the State Farm bill”, which would allegedly ease rate regulation for the largest insurers in the state. (Story here, via the Ledger.) Perhaps it might have the desired effect, of incenting larger carriers to not leave the state (as State Farm is trying to do) and causing market disruption. However, it seems a little unfair that certain carriers would have to continue to jump through hoops while competing against larger companies with greater freedom.
There has also been some late-session wrangling in the Florida state legislature over what to do with Citizens (the state-run insurer) and the state’s catastrophe fund. An Orlando Sentinel blog mentioned today that a compromise has been struck, with Citizens policyholders facing an average 10 percent rate hike (the House had wanted +20, the Senate +5). The cat fund also appears up for some downsizing.
Nina Kallen passed along word that the National Flood Insurance Program has again been extended, this time to 30 September. Apparently, Congress continues to punt, while otherwise distracted.
With the Atlantic tropical storm season on the horizon, Insurance Journal pointed to a report by the National Academy of Engineering, reminding us that levees aren’t magic barriers rendering cities invulnerable from flood. If an über-Katrina were to strike New Orleans (heaven forbid!), overtopping could still cause devastating flooding.
At RealClearPolitics, Thomas Sowell has a very well-written article reminding us, as public debate continues on “universal healthcare” and “healthcare reform”:

Insurance is not medical care. Indeed, health care is not the same as medical care. Countries with universal health care do not have more or better medical care.

While it is tempting to disregard Mr. Sowell’s thesis as conservative resistance against a liberal policy…he actually does make an excellent point – whether or not everyone is covered by health insurance, it does nothing to address the ever-increasing expense in delivering the level of care demanded by Americans. Either we accept that health care is going to be horrifically expensive, or we find a way to manage costs (even if that means reducing the level of care available, or imposing regulation on private decisions to force a reduction in demand)….or we accept that sometimes, life just isn’t fair.
Speaking of health care reform, the New York Times reminds us that it isn’t just about the dollars. A lack of doctors means a lack of care and/or long waiting lists to get in. The costs of medical education force doctors to specialize, creating a lack of general practitioners who are better-suited to treating the whole patient, rather than focusing on addressing specific conditions. We need to look not only at the cost side of the equation, but also the entire care delivery mechanisms.
And finally, on the subject of education, as someone who frequently felt “held back” in grade school, to permit other students a chance to keep up with the pace, another New York Times article caught my eye by discussing concerns that the Advanced Placement program is getting diluted by students who want to be seen as competitive…but who, perhaps, aren’t really up for the demand. As a result, perhaps the push to prepare for the exams and to maintain academic rigor is being sacrificed by a system that doesn’t like to allow students to fail.

…and the Financial Crunch Trickles Down to Municipalities

MikeTheActuary — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:10:00 +0000

Yesterday, when discussing local revaluation, I expressed concern about the probable nastiness arising from revaluation disruption hitting as state grants to towns dry up.

It begins.

Seen in the Courant:

The state budget crisis edged closer to Connecticut’s classrooms Wednesday, when the state school board reluctantly endorsed more than $280 million in potential spending cuts next year.[…]

The state board cautioned that $230 million of rollbacks in Education Cost-Sharing grants would slam the budgets of towns and cities. The cuts would be "nothing more than a transfer of the fiscal crisis from the state to local districts and municipalities," the board wrote in a prepared resolution.

The list of cuts is only a recommendation, one that Gov. M. Jodi Rell can tweak, overhaul or ignore as she prepares her state budget proposal for release in February. But with Connecticut facing a projected $6 billion deficit over the next two years, state officials anticipate reductions in every part of government.

WSJ OpEd Challenges the Near-Universal Requirement for College Education

MikeTheActuary — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:54:23 +0000

I know that I’m not alone in occasionally seeing postings or want-ads looking to fill certain positions and thinking, “they require a college degree for that”?

Charles Murray has taken that a step further with an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal (free link):

Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:

First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn’t meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."

You would conclude that your colleague was cruel, not to say insane. But that’s the system we have in place.

Finding a better way should be easy. The BA acquired its current inflated status by accident. Advanced skills for people with brains really did get more valuable over the course of the 20th century, but the acquisition of those skills got conflated with the existing system of colleges, which had evolved the BA for completely different purposes. […]

The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.

Mr. Murray’s solution is certification exams like the CPA exam (or, presumably, actuarial exams) for many professions, in lieu of a Bachelor’s degree.

I’m not sure that I’d necessarily agree with that – after all, the downside in standardized testing is that the only thing measure by the test is one’s ability to take the test – but I have frequently wondered if many professions that “require” college degrees wouldn’t be better served by more-efficiently delivered vocational education.

Yes, there is value to a Bachelor’s degree – it’s a sign of persistence and some level of intelligence. There is value to the concept of students being exposed to the depths of new subjects, and hopefully being though to think.

But, when you look at how big the business of education has become, how many students leave college burdened with mountains of debt…especially if they’re entering a very specialized field…and if they can obtain student loans in the current credit environment… isn’t it natural to wonder “is this all really necessary” and “isn’t there a better way?”

A Centrist’s Platform — Education

MikeTheActuary — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:10:21 +0000

Like last week’s post, this week’s topic is another on my list which I should have probably made a few notes on. Like crime last week, there are many potential education sub-topics I could write about….and I will once again resort to a bullet list.

One of the more recent annoyances I’ve witnessed (admittedly from the outside, since I don’t have kids) in the past several years is a seeming over-reliance on standardized testing to measure kids’ educational progress.

I do actually agree with the principle that if money is being spent on school programs, some proof should be required that the investment is worthwhile; but in the time that school systems have gone too gung-ho with testing, folks seem to have forgotten that the only thing standardized tests measure is the ability to take standardized tests.
I do have to give President Bush some credit for seeking to prevent learning-disabled children from being left behind in the push to improve school systems. However, from what I’ve seen and heard here in Connecticut, school systems being obliged to add support for disabled students have had to withdraw support for programs for gifted students. This potential drag on the best and brightest of the upcoming generation seems rather counterintuitive to me.
I have seemingly conflicting concerns on the subject of teacher pay. On the one hand, the pittance we pay teachers in this country is appalling. Personally, I’d love to be a teacher, but I’m not sure that I’d be comfortable trying to provide for my family on a teacher’s salary; thus, I became an actuary instead. I’m sure that there are many other professionals who have similar thoughts.

On the other hand, one of my recurring gripes with my local school system is the contractually-obliged annual raises that are granted with seemingly little improvement. What is it that teachers unions have against pay-for-performance?
Looking on to college — is it my imagination, or has college become ridiculously expensive in the past couple of decades. I was lucky enough to eke out of school without debt by scholarships, odd jobs, and finishing my degree in 3 years; however, it seems like recent graduates are coming out of university up to their eyeballs in debt. Perhaps some thought should be given to alternative funding schemes…or perhaps American society needs to start asking if a 4-year university education really necessary for most jobs?

Homeschooling Unconstitutional in California

MikeTheActuary — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:10:05 +0000

Seen in the San Francisco Chronicle:

A California appeals court ruling clamping down on homeschooling by parents without teaching credentials sent shock waves across the state this week, leaving an estimated 166,000 children as possible truants and their parents at risk of prosecution.[...]

[T]he appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California’s compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child’s grade level.

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. “Parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling under the provisions of these laws.”[...]

“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare,” the judge wrote, quoting from a 1961 case on a similar issue.

Even though I am uncomfortable with the motivations of at least one stereotype of a typical homeschooler, I find this ruling rather disturbing on several grounds.

First, given how bad some public schools can be (especially if a student has special needs or is gifted), I’d be very concerned if a parent didn’t have as a fallback option the ability to homeschool his/her children. If the best option available is homeschooling, and if some reasonable minimum standard of education and a common curriculum are being verfiably met, then virtually nothing should be held aside as an avenue for a parent to provide the best education they can for a child.

Second, I have from time to time considered becoming a teacher. The low pay and the amount of B.S. required in getting fully credentialed have been the factors that have kept me from heading down that path. To require that everyone who teaches a child be encumbered with that B.S. is very troubling to me.

Third, on general principle, I object to unnecessary intrusions of the government into citizens’ private lives. It seems to me that part of that includes accepting that parents have broad latitude in deciding how they will raise their kids. I may disagree with some of the choices they make…but I’m OK with that, within reason, if it means that the same lassiez-faire attitude is adopted about how I might raise my hypothetical/future kids.

And finally, while the attitude is understandable especially given the era in which it was formulated, that last quoted paragraph above just seems creepy to me. A public education should not have as a primary purpose the indoctrination of possibly blind loyalty to the state. It should be limited to providing a common base from which a child can eventually become a productive member of society.

Presumably a part of such an education would involve exposure to quite a bit of information about our country’s government, history, and society…the good and the bad. If done right, I’d like to believe that a child would come to appreciate the U.S., have a healthy respect for its advantages, an awareness of the blemishes in our past, and have some opinion about the pros and cons of different ways we can move forward.

But the state’s promulgation of loyalty and patriotism indoctrination seems just a little too totalitarian for my tastes.