Prof. Comisso showed me the CAPEs that (most of) you filled out in lecture that one time. Some of you wrote nice things about me.
So: thank you. It's honestly really appreciated.
:-)
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Weekly question due date and Buckley waivers
Hi everyone,
1)If you want credit for the weekly questions, you'll need to answer them by next Wednesday (December 7th). Your e-mail must be postmarked 11:59pm (Pacific time) or earlier on that day, or else it won't count.
You'll get a generic "Ok, I got this" response for each set of questions that you send in. If you actually want to discuss one or more of the issues with me, e-mail me about it at my ucsd account.
2)If you want me to make your graded finals available to you, you need to sign a Buckley waiver and staple it to your essay. Whether or not you sign it, I won't comment as extensively as I did in (most of) the first two papers. But I'll be available next quarter to discuss your final with you, if that's what you'd like to do
1)If you want credit for the weekly questions, you'll need to answer them by next Wednesday (December 7th). Your e-mail must be postmarked 11:59pm (Pacific time) or earlier on that day, or else it won't count.
You'll get a generic "Ok, I got this" response for each set of questions that you send in. If you actually want to discuss one or more of the issues with me, e-mail me about it at my ucsd account.
2)If you want me to make your graded finals available to you, you need to sign a Buckley waiver and staple it to your essay. Whether or not you sign it, I won't comment as extensively as I did in (most of) the first two papers. But I'll be available next quarter to discuss your final with you, if that's what you'd like to do
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
7th Week
Here are this week's weekly questions.
1)According to federal law, how old do you think you have to be in order to legally work in the US? Answer this part in your head before going on.
Now go here:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agerequirements.htm
Were you right? How do you feel about it?
2)Denmark recently passed a "fat tax". Fatty foods, which some believe are dangerous to one's health, now cost more. In the US, there is talk of implementing a "soda tax". The purpose of this tax would be to get people to drink less sugary soda, and to raise money for health care. How do you feel about these interpretations of the concept of consumer safety?
3)Lotteries are all rigged to make money. So are casinos. Yet people continue to gamble, despite the hard fact that the house always wins. What accounts for this? Is it a matter of risk-aversion? Do people just really suck at figuring out probabilities? And how the heck can this be related to the material in this course?
4)Name one consumer item that you think needs much more regulation (or an outright ban), OR name one that you think should be less regulated. Explain why.
1)According to federal law, how old do you think you have to be in order to legally work in the US? Answer this part in your head before going on.
Now go here:
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/youthlabor/agerequirements.htm
Were you right? How do you feel about it?
2)Denmark recently passed a "fat tax". Fatty foods, which some believe are dangerous to one's health, now cost more. In the US, there is talk of implementing a "soda tax". The purpose of this tax would be to get people to drink less sugary soda, and to raise money for health care. How do you feel about these interpretations of the concept of consumer safety?
3)Lotteries are all rigged to make money. So are casinos. Yet people continue to gamble, despite the hard fact that the house always wins. What accounts for this? Is it a matter of risk-aversion? Do people just really suck at figuring out probabilities? And how the heck can this be related to the material in this course?
4)Name one consumer item that you think needs much more regulation (or an outright ban), OR name one that you think should be less regulated. Explain why.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Eight tips for your next essay
While correcting your first essays, I came up with eight generic things that I wanted to tell you. I'm writing these here because they apply to a lot of the essays that I read. Here they are:
1.My comments are not comprehensive. That means that you should try to fix the negative stuff that I pointed out in my comments, but don't restrict yourself to that if you want to maximize your chances of getting a really good grade. Pobody's nerfect.
2.Skip the biographical details. I don't need to know that Nozick taught at Harvard. Worse, I don't need to know that "Nozick is a philosopher at Harvard", because that is a false statement. Nozick and Rawls are dead. Including biographical information is fine for high school, but it's not a good style for anything above that.
3.Know what you're critiquing. Then blast it. Fully understand utilitarianism before critiquing it, or critiquing things that look like it. Re-read the tiny but not very easy Mill selection. He differentiates between things that promote happiness on the whole and things that are "expedient".
Here's an example. Let's say that I break up with my girlfriend and want to start dating again. I want to be as happy as possible. You want me to be as happy as possible. The problem is that my clothes are beyond lame. I ask you how I look. Let's say that you're terrible at being diplomatic. You can either tell me the truth ("Looks terrible, dude.") or lie ("Lookin' good, playa!"). You're a utilitarian, so you have no deontological problem with lying. Here's what can happen:
a)you lie. I feel good, go out on my date, who is too polite to say anything bad. But the whole time she is thinking "He's a nice guy, but he literally is the lamest looking person I have ever seen in my life. I'm willing to give people a chance, but this is just too much. He is actually dressed like a clown. A CLOWN. Who dresses like a clown when going to the opera?! I don't want to date a clown! Not even a nice clown!" She lets me down easily. I'm sort of bummed out, but not that sad. I have a date next week with someone else. I ask you again how I look. You lie. The cycle repeats itself.
b)you tell me the truth. I cry, feel awful, and tearfully cancel my date as clown makeup streams down my face. For the next couple of weeks I do nothing but eat chocolate cookies, which to me taste like bitter ashes. I eventually calm down, learn how to dress, and do a good enough job for a really wonderful person to give me a shot. We fall in love and I end up really happy
The first choice is the expedient one. The second one is the utilitarian one. Assuming that you were able to predict all this.
There's more to be said here, but let's not bother. The point is that when discussing utilitarianism, OR people like Ladd, Reich, etc., similar ideas apply.
4.Always define technical terms. If your smart grandma who follows the news and reads one of the major news papers wouldn't recognize a term, you need to define it immediately after using it. The definition can be tiny, but it needs to be there. On that note...
5.Always define what you're talking about before talking about it. Technically, there are other ways you can do this, but the simplest way to organize the paper is to explain the theorist, explain the case, and then show the connection between the two. Or you can explain the case before the theorist. What you can't do is neglect to define the case (or the theorist) and jump right into trying to show the connection between the two.
6.Don't use adverbs. "Ladd strongly believes..." only makes sense if one of the other authors weakly believes, hesitantly believes, or whatever. There is a baseline assumption that every author "strongly", "adamantly", "firmly".
Saying "Ladd firmly believes that..." makes as much sense to me as "Ladd believes with his brain that..." Seriously. Think about it.
7.Don't be awkward. When I write "awk", I understand what you're trying to get at, but you've expressed the point poorly. This isn't just nitpicking. About half of your grade is based on how clearly you're able to express yourself.
"But you know what I meant!" Yes I did. But you still didn't write it well. If we wanted to know whether or not you simply knew the material, we'd give out multiple choice or short answer exams. Instead, we are giving out seven page essays. Clear, persuasive writing counts. And you can make it better. We all can.
Think of clear writing as getting the actual correct answer on a math problem. "You know what I meant" is a crappy line when a bridge collapses because you forgot to carry the three
8.Stop using wussy verbs. Use powerful, action-packed verbs instead. Authors that we read do not "mention", "bring up", or "hint at". They argue, they illustrate, they believe that, they advocate. When you say that Nozick "mentions that taxes are unjust" or "brings up the idea of having a deontological approach", you make him sound like a wussy nerd. Skeleton Nozick cries bitter tears of skeleton rage whenever someone makes him sound like that. "NO!", he yells each and every time, "I WAS ARGUING THAT POINT! AR-GU-ING!"
That said, none of these are as important as what I wrote in my previous post about grading.
1.My comments are not comprehensive. That means that you should try to fix the negative stuff that I pointed out in my comments, but don't restrict yourself to that if you want to maximize your chances of getting a really good grade. Pobody's nerfect.
2.Skip the biographical details. I don't need to know that Nozick taught at Harvard. Worse, I don't need to know that "Nozick is a philosopher at Harvard", because that is a false statement. Nozick and Rawls are dead. Including biographical information is fine for high school, but it's not a good style for anything above that.
3.Know what you're critiquing. Then blast it. Fully understand utilitarianism before critiquing it, or critiquing things that look like it. Re-read the tiny but not very easy Mill selection. He differentiates between things that promote happiness on the whole and things that are "expedient".
Here's an example. Let's say that I break up with my girlfriend and want to start dating again. I want to be as happy as possible. You want me to be as happy as possible. The problem is that my clothes are beyond lame. I ask you how I look. Let's say that you're terrible at being diplomatic. You can either tell me the truth ("Looks terrible, dude.") or lie ("Lookin' good, playa!"). You're a utilitarian, so you have no deontological problem with lying. Here's what can happen:
a)you lie. I feel good, go out on my date, who is too polite to say anything bad. But the whole time she is thinking "He's a nice guy, but he literally is the lamest looking person I have ever seen in my life. I'm willing to give people a chance, but this is just too much. He is actually dressed like a clown. A CLOWN. Who dresses like a clown when going to the opera?! I don't want to date a clown! Not even a nice clown!" She lets me down easily. I'm sort of bummed out, but not that sad. I have a date next week with someone else. I ask you again how I look. You lie. The cycle repeats itself.
b)you tell me the truth. I cry, feel awful, and tearfully cancel my date as clown makeup streams down my face. For the next couple of weeks I do nothing but eat chocolate cookies, which to me taste like bitter ashes. I eventually calm down, learn how to dress, and do a good enough job for a really wonderful person to give me a shot. We fall in love and I end up really happy
The first choice is the expedient one. The second one is the utilitarian one. Assuming that you were able to predict all this.
There's more to be said here, but let's not bother. The point is that when discussing utilitarianism, OR people like Ladd, Reich, etc., similar ideas apply.
4.Always define technical terms. If your smart grandma who follows the news and reads one of the major news papers wouldn't recognize a term, you need to define it immediately after using it. The definition can be tiny, but it needs to be there. On that note...
5.Always define what you're talking about before talking about it. Technically, there are other ways you can do this, but the simplest way to organize the paper is to explain the theorist, explain the case, and then show the connection between the two. Or you can explain the case before the theorist. What you can't do is neglect to define the case (or the theorist) and jump right into trying to show the connection between the two.
6.Don't use adverbs. "Ladd strongly believes..." only makes sense if one of the other authors weakly believes, hesitantly believes, or whatever. There is a baseline assumption that every author "strongly", "adamantly", "firmly".
Saying "Ladd firmly believes that..." makes as much sense to me as "Ladd believes with his brain that..." Seriously. Think about it.
7.Don't be awkward. When I write "awk", I understand what you're trying to get at, but you've expressed the point poorly. This isn't just nitpicking. About half of your grade is based on how clearly you're able to express yourself.
"But you know what I meant!" Yes I did. But you still didn't write it well. If we wanted to know whether or not you simply knew the material, we'd give out multiple choice or short answer exams. Instead, we are giving out seven page essays. Clear, persuasive writing counts. And you can make it better. We all can.
Think of clear writing as getting the actual correct answer on a math problem. "You know what I meant" is a crappy line when a bridge collapses because you forgot to carry the three
8.Stop using wussy verbs. Use powerful, action-packed verbs instead. Authors that we read do not "mention", "bring up", or "hint at". They argue, they illustrate, they believe that, they advocate. When you say that Nozick "mentions that taxes are unjust" or "brings up the idea of having a deontological approach", you make him sound like a wussy nerd. Skeleton Nozick cries bitter tears of skeleton rage whenever someone makes him sound like that. "NO!", he yells each and every time, "I WAS ARGUING THAT POINT! AR-GU-ING!"
That said, none of these are as important as what I wrote in my previous post about grading.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
5th Set of Weekly Questions
This week's questions all have to do with the clips we saw in section.
QUESTION 1
What does the idea that "the corporation is a person" have to do with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? (hint: the one passed after the Civil War) Was this surprising to you, and does it matter?
QUESTION 2
One of the people interviewed was saying that corporations actually do a lot of good for the poor when they relocate to Third World countries. Do you agree with this perspective? Why / why not?
QUESTION 3
The clips showed people working in sweatshops in what most people would call horrible conditions. How do you feel about it? If you don't like it, what do you suggest? If you think it's fine, recall that a very large percentage of people live in what most Americans would consider very poor conditions. Would you be willing to go behind Rawls' veil of ignorance and risk being born into their position?
QUESTION 4
The last clip showed a commodities trader talking about how the first thing he thought about on 9/11 was "My God! Gold must be going up!", and that the tragedy was a "blessing in disguise" for his clients, who had invested heavily in gold. Do you think he came off as a jerk? If so, was he just sleazy, or was he immoral? "Sleazy" means that he didn't do anything wrong, but... ew. "Immoral" means that he did something wrong.
QUESTION 1
What does the idea that "the corporation is a person" have to do with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? (hint: the one passed after the Civil War) Was this surprising to you, and does it matter?
QUESTION 2
One of the people interviewed was saying that corporations actually do a lot of good for the poor when they relocate to Third World countries. Do you agree with this perspective? Why / why not?
QUESTION 3
The clips showed people working in sweatshops in what most people would call horrible conditions. How do you feel about it? If you don't like it, what do you suggest? If you think it's fine, recall that a very large percentage of people live in what most Americans would consider very poor conditions. Would you be willing to go behind Rawls' veil of ignorance and risk being born into their position?
QUESTION 4
The last clip showed a commodities trader talking about how the first thing he thought about on 9/11 was "My God! Gold must be going up!", and that the tragedy was a "blessing in disguise" for his clients, who had invested heavily in gold. Do you think he came off as a jerk? If so, was he just sleazy, or was he immoral? "Sleazy" means that he didn't do anything wrong, but... ew. "Immoral" means that he did something wrong.
Monday, October 24, 2011
4th set of weekly questions
It's essay-writing week, so we're not covering new material. As usual, answer three out of the four to get credit.
QUESTION 1
Pretend there is a bill in Congress that says that it will be illegal for American companies to do business in non-democratic countries. Give one argument for the bill, and one argument against it
QUESTION 2
Now that we're a month into the quarter: do you think that there is any actual point to learning about anything we've covered so far? If so, what? If not, why?
Yes, it's perfectly okay to say that the material is a waste of time. I've said that to professors in the past. :-)
QUESTION 3
"If voters just put more pressure on their politicians to stand up to corporate malfeasance (look it up if you don't know that word :-)), politicians would do a much better job at keeping companies in line. Companies act up because politicians basically let them, and politicians do that because they voters are too apathetic to do anything about it."
What do you think of that line of reasoning?
QUESTION 4
Pretend that you started a private drug manufacturing business - you're the only owner. It's a huge success. Profits are good, the future outlook is rosy, etc. You have 100 million dollars and will likely make an extra 5 million next year. You realize, though, that you could probably get an EXTRA million if you relax your quality control a little.
Pretend that you know for a fact that you will not get caught. No one would ever know. If you relax the quality control, you get an extra million dollars, but you're pretty sure that about 10,000 people will die as a result. Some slowly, some pretty quickly.
Would you do it? If so, would you do it for 1 extra dollar? If not, do you think that still makes sense to assume that companies do nothing but maximize profits? Why/why not?
QUESTION 1
Pretend there is a bill in Congress that says that it will be illegal for American companies to do business in non-democratic countries. Give one argument for the bill, and one argument against it
QUESTION 2
Now that we're a month into the quarter: do you think that there is any actual point to learning about anything we've covered so far? If so, what? If not, why?
Yes, it's perfectly okay to say that the material is a waste of time. I've said that to professors in the past. :-)
QUESTION 3
"If voters just put more pressure on their politicians to stand up to corporate malfeasance (look it up if you don't know that word :-)), politicians would do a much better job at keeping companies in line. Companies act up because politicians basically let them, and politicians do that because they voters are too apathetic to do anything about it."
What do you think of that line of reasoning?
QUESTION 4
Pretend that you started a private drug manufacturing business - you're the only owner. It's a huge success. Profits are good, the future outlook is rosy, etc. You have 100 million dollars and will likely make an extra 5 million next year. You realize, though, that you could probably get an EXTRA million if you relax your quality control a little.
Pretend that you know for a fact that you will not get caught. No one would ever know. If you relax the quality control, you get an extra million dollars, but you're pretty sure that about 10,000 people will die as a result. Some slowly, some pretty quickly.
Would you do it? If so, would you do it for 1 extra dollar? If not, do you think that still makes sense to assume that companies do nothing but maximize profits? Why/why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)