Indeed, the main argument made by the reasonroids’ side of the debate isn’t that we need to set salaries or incentives for teachers differently. If we really are simply thinking in terms of incentive or the “MBA mentality,” we’d rightly conclude that Damon, however smart he is, is wrong to downplay the importance of salary and job security and raise salaries in order to attract more and better teachers. The argument is, or should be, that it is highly paternalistic to put teachers in a position that their job security, perks and even wages are at the mercy of taxpayers. The problem is taxpayers are stingy assholes.

People on reason.tv’s side of the debate trap themselves into a corner arguing for less cushy jobs for teachers when the free market very well could offer better working conditions for all we know. The fat seems not to be in teachers’ salaries and perks, but in supporting the various parasites that feed off the system*. If giving teachers rock star salaries brings more students to your school, then teachers will have rock star salaries. So let’s free teachers from the tyranny of the taxpayer**.

I’m suspicious of Milt Friedman’s idea of the school voucher. In many other 1st world welfare states, public schools are not free. If we do require people to pay what they can afford (with the rich paying the full costs), we can reduce the stress on the general fund and remove one subsidy for having kids. Welfare for the poor, not the absolutely rich. This will bring more money in so it is easier to pay teachers well and make it more worthwhile for private enterprise to enter the education (less crowd-out effect; hard to compete with free) without the free handouts vouchers would constitute. It would be important, though, to modernize accreditation requirements so as to allow actual competition between different approaches. That’s what education needs above all.

* Consultants and vendors gouging the district for their often worthless wares.. that’s what the artificial scarcity of the complex procurement process gets us

** Enter the tyranny of the customer. Still more tolerable since they have kids they care about. ‘Taxpayers’ includes these parents, plus everyone else

Anyway, here’s the best I can come up with for what they’re saying.. I don’t know why TV is so hard for me! update: I fixed this to the right translation (thanks かなちさん！)

お兄ちゃん:すみません。遅れました。
お父さん(犬):遅い！
お母さん: 遅れるなら、電話してね。
お姉ちゃん: 家族関数がご利用なんだから。
お兄ちゃん:ちょっと瞥見で電話してて
お父さん(犬): おまえには瞥見などない！

1. Based on the article, what was the hypothesis tested in this study?

That sperm count is negatively affected by regular cell phone use, including simply having the phone on.

2. What was the experiment designed to test the hypothesis?

The researchers looked at the sperm counts of men who use cell phones regularly or not regularly. The article is sketchy on details (other than number of men and how many months), but I assume there is a control group of men who don’t use cell phones.

3. What were the conclusions drawn from the results of the experiment?

That regular cell phone use reduces fertility by reducing sperm count and causing living sperm to not move correctly.

4. Are there alternative hypotheses that fit the data?

That talking on the phone (and only talking on the phone) causes drop in fertility. The article mentions that this is what most researchers believe and doesn’t show the data that makes these researchers think otherwise. Another hypothesis could be that the specific frequencies used have a negative effect on fertility, but not necessarily other frequencies.

5. Based on the article, do you think the researchers proved their hypothesis true? Is the quote from Dr. Fejes justified given the data? Why or why not?

There isn’t enough data about their methods to know, but his quote shows the proper level of caution with his use of “may.” If sperm count is lower, that is good reason to think that spermatogenesis is negatively affected (unless the signals are simply killing already created sperm).

6. What follow-up experiments would need to be performed to validate the results of this study?

I would expose sperm samples to these frequencies to see if they are killed or their motility affected to rule out the possibility that the signals are simply affecting already-created sperm, rather than affecting spermatogenesis itself.

7. Look again at the synopsis just below the title. Do you think it accurately describes the results of the study? Is it informative or misleading?

As typical with press articles, it overstates the extent of one studies. Scientific knowledge is the sum of countless studies that look at relationships between an independent variable and dependent variable(s). If a study is the “first” or “only” study to verify a hypothesis when other’s don’t (as the synopsis states is the case here), then there is more likely to be something wrong with the study than all the other studies.

8. Look again at the first and third paragraphs. Do you think the advice to put the phone in a bag would be justified given the data we have now? Why or why not?

It might not be, since it seems to have to do with frequency of use, not with placement (electromagnetic waves don’t know placement, otherwise cell phones wouldn’t be terribly useful!)

9. Look again at the description of how the study was performed in paragraph two. What would you like to know about the procedures used in the study before concluding that the observed results are not an artifact of how the study was done?

I’d like to know if they control for age (middle-aged men may simply be more affluent or have more need for cell phones than younger men), and if they actually track where the cell phones are kept (i.e., if them being place in a bag really makes a difference).

Anyway, I made this spreadsheet for myself for Biology 7.014, which is the basic Biology course for Biology majors. Just go down the list, and do the assignments and watch the lectures.. Then, try to discover something yourself..

Biology 7.014 Syllabus (.ods)
Biology 7.014 Syllabus (.pdf)
Biology 7.014 Syllabus (.xls)

(And no, it hasn’t escaped me that the file extension for Opendocument Spreadsheet looks like “odious”)

Here’s the course itself. I can’t believe no one else is taking advantage of this!!

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-014Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm

5.111 Principles of Chemical Science
5.12 Organic Chemistry I
20.110J Thermodynamics of Biomolecular Systems

7.02 Experimental Biology & Communications
7.13 Experimental Microbial Genetics
7.17 Experimental Molecular Biology: Biotechnology III (bastards don’t have this yet either..)
7.18 Topics in Experimental Biology

The 3 elective courses yet to be decided, but then again, I do not plan on doing my education entirely this way. Just a couple of classes tops would be ideal. My path will probably go 7.014 -> 7.02 -> try to do my own experimental study -> start at brick & mortar institution. If I do do things this way, then I will need to score very well on the appropriate tests for entry for MS in bioscience and convince people that good self-study + BS in unrelated field should satisfy them…