Cancellation of Nutcracker Suite

Dear Ms. Slap,
I understand from the Internet that you are the chair lady of the School Committee for Belmont. I also suspect that a School Committee Is equivalent to a School Board, which oversees the operations of the local school system, including appointments of the superintendent of schools and advising him of appropriate policies.
Fox News reports that the PTA at Belmont has canceled a field trip for the students to see Nutcracker Suite. The cancellation is said to be based upon the fact that the Nutcracker Suite has religious connotations. I find that ridiculous. I have watched the Nutcracker Suite for many years and have never thought that it was promoting religion.
Even if it had, I would like to know from you what's wrong with that? We were founded as a Christian society. Do you personally have some reason that it should be changed? It has been said that the cancellation was based upon the fact that other religious groups were offended by it. So what? I'm sure that you are well aware that in every decision that any executive makes there will always be some kind of an objection. Some of these objections are worth addressing. In this case, we need to go ahead with the field trip in spite of the fact that other groups are offended. If they need to voice their opinions or propose field trips to other extravaganzas, that can also be considered.
In spite of the above, my main issue is who is running the school system in Belmont? Is that the school board or as you call it the School Committee or is it the PTA? In my continued experience through the years the PTA has been of some value in working with the public school system, but they have always been considered to be advisors and not in charge of the system. Who's the boss? You or the PTA?

Gave Up Geography for Diversity Training?

Writing for Publius Forum, Warner Todd Houston reports that the California El Rancho Verde Unified School District will stop requiring its high-school students to take geography and instead require them to take a class on diversity and inclusion.
98% of the school district students are Hispanic. The School District President, Aurora Villon, said the class is necessary because minority students “need to feel validated. When you negate their culture, they feel less than other students.”
What hogwash! According to President Villon's standard, one can ignore the practicalities of how the rest of the world operates as long as one feels good about himself.
Apparently it will make no difference to the newly educated Hispanics that all fighting in the Middle East is primarily based on land grabbing, that voting blocs in the US are established by geographical boundaries, and that oil and gas rights are similarly defined by geographical boundaries.
All of those practical aspects are apparently insignificant and should not bother to be recognized, providing one feels good about himself.
Instead of teaching diversity, would it not be better to teach character development? In order to do that, it should not be necessary to give up geography. When I attended PS 13 in New York, the physical education coach did that as part of his PE teaching program.

There is Satisfaction in Beauty and Accomplishment

            Right after the close of World War II, I was pursuing a PhD in Organic Chemistry at Cornell University. My major professor was A. T. Blomquist, whose specialty at that time was large ring molecules.

            In the field of organic chemistry, carbon atoms can align themselves in chains called acyclics, or in rings called cyclics. In the case of cyclics, the preferred ring size is six carbon atoms, with such common compounds as benzene, toluene and cyclohexane. Blomquist's questions were: can we make compounds with more than six carbons in a ring: if so, how; and will the compounds have any special properties?

            Several graduate students, including me, were involved in this project. Suffice to say that I was successful, finding also that the large ring compounds had few special properties, other than odor.

            Toward the close of my graduate program, I had a job interview with Dr. Ralph Connor of the Rohm & Haas Company. I told Dr. Connor that I was tired of research which seem to have no significant basis for practicality. He told me he had just the job for me in a development laboratory where I would be m involved in developing new products of commercial use, and I started my Rohm & Haas career.

            It is now 65 years later, and I've had no regrets in pursuing my career based on the practicality of chemistry.

            However, I recently read an article by Sam Kean entitled, "Tiny Productions" in the Spring 2014 issue of Chemical Heritage. Kean's  article looks at the other side of the picture. Rather than summarize what he had to say, it seems more appropriate to quote him directly.

            "Whenever I give talks about the periodic table, the most common questions I get asked is why scientists bother. What good is making ultra-heavy elements?"

            "Most people who ask are genuinely curious. Every so often, though, someone starts to sputter, bordering on anger. Their question is really a challenge. Sometimes it's the money that bothers them: they see science is a zero-sum game, and every dime not spent on, say. medical cures is a dime wasted. But even when I explain the trickle-down effects of such research (it could lead to new ways of producing medical isotopes), they're not placated. Really, it's the willful disregard for practicality that eats at them. The idea that scientists might dedicate their lives to creating something that does not have, and will never have, any practical value almost offends them.".

            "In the end I usually smile and say we need to embrace the uselessness of these elements, even celebrate it. In a utilitarian calculus you can't justify the production of ultraheavy, ultrarare elements -- except to say that they add to the sum of human knowledge and happiness, which is no small thing. Even more than that, the creation of them satisfies a human need to push beyond our natural boundaries, to explore as much of our little pocket of the universe as possible. It takes all types to make a periodic table, and if some of those elements are as rare and as fleeting as an ivory billed woodpecker, they're all the more beautiful for it."

Student Loan Interest Rates

Open email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter on student loan interest rates.
    You said you joined with Democrats and Republicans to support a step in the direction of market-based solutions, voting for legislation that would tie those rates to the value of U.S. Treasury securities each year, rather than allowing Congress to set them at an arbitrary percentage.    This would presumably increase the student loan interest rate to something higher than the previous 3.4%, but that is not clear.
    While this is a step in the direction of market-based solution, as you claim, it is not sufficient. Student loan interest rates should be consistent with lending rates in the general market. While this will give a higher interest rate, it will also discourage unnecessary borrowing, on the part of students to obtain college degrees which in many cases will be of no significant value. The market is already flooded with college graduates who cannot find jobs equivalent to salary payments which would allow them to pay off their student loans in a practical manner. In effect, low student loan rates have done damage to the educational system, and should be stopped as soon as possible.

Unnecessary Government Involvement in Education

 Open email to Congress:

    In the June 17 issue of C&E News, it was reported that Pres. Obama surprised the educational community by proposing some significant changes in the federal education program. The President wants to cut the total number of federal education programs from the current 226 to 110. Great! However, he would also increase federal funding for science education to $3.4 billion from $2.9 billion last year. Bad news!.

    How does Pres. Obama get involved in science education in universities? He does so through the various agencies, which have been created by Congress and which then have developed grant programs whereby they give significant amounts of taxpayer funds to universities. This has been a bad move by Congress, and I have said many times before that the federal government should have no involvement in using taxpayer funds for federal education programs. The average American citizen is well able to handle his own education program.

    The President's plan also proposes that the various grants for education purposes should be removed from the various agencies and consolidated in the Department of Education. That's good news, because if there's one agency that we should dispose of, it is the Department of Education.

    Other good news is that skepticism of the general education program has already started in Congress through the House of Representatives Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
    In the same issue of C&E News, it is reported that the American Chemical Society's Committee on Professional Training (CPT) has developed guidelines and a review program to determine whether the undergraduate chemistry program at universities meets and remains in compliance with requirements related to faculty and staff, infrastructure, curriculum, undergraduate research, and student development. More simply, the American Chemical Society has taken a leadership position in developing and continuing to develop adequate educational programs within the universities, without any input from the federal government. I also suspect that similar organizations in physics and mathematics have had strong inputs to the educational programs of the universities.
    On this basis, I strongly urge Congress and particularly the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to immediately start efforts to not only defund any federal programs related to education, but also to begin elimination of the Department of Education. Private industry and the public can well handle all requirements, without government intervention.

Teacher Evaluations Available to the General Public

     There was another discussion this morning on Fox News concerning release of teacher evaluations to the general public. The public seemed to be for the release. The teachers are against.
     I would like to make an analogy.
     In my many years of business, I found that one of the standard procedures involving personnel was to have an annual evaluation by each person's immediate boss. Those evaluations that were kept in the Personnel Department, now Human Resources, and were used for subsequent management judgments on employee advancement within the organization, or in some cases dismissal. The basis for the system was that the organization was paying the employee salary and had a right to determine the effectiveness of the employee within the organization, to see whether it was getting its money's worth.
     I see no difference between that private operation in companies and public employees. Since the public is paying salaries, it has a right to know how effective the individuals are with respect to earning those salaries.
     The teachers union is well-organized and seems to have the ability to out-shout the general public. However, that is no reason for the general public to acquiesce to unreasonable demands. It pays teacher salaries and has a right to know how effective those teachers are.

College Students Going Home

    There was a discussion this morning on Fox News concerning a large number of college graduates going home to live with their parents after graduation.
    The consensus was that this is bad, because as those young people return to homes where they lived his children, they do not have an opportunity to mature. The question then is what is maturity and is it a good thing? It seems that maturity is primarily an ability to assume a sense of responsibility, particularly maintaining one's own life and subsequently assisting in the development of responsibility in others, such as children.
    A second disadvantage of "going home" is that it admits to likely having made an improper judgment in obtaining a college education in a field for which there are no jobs. From that point of view, the cost of a college education is a waste of money.
    We should then be asking why the US society finds itself in this position. The answer is a fairly obvious. First, the advantages of a college education with respect to employment have been oversold. There is no doubt that employed college educated people on average make a higher annual salary than those with high school educations, but there is a limit to the availability of such high paying jobs.
    The second fallacy is a belief in the minds of the general public that a college education solves all personal economic problems. This leads to young people obtaining college degrees in fields where there is limited job opportunity, such as Family Relations and International Politics. This belief also leads to avoiding fields, where there are known bona fide job opportunities, such as Statistics, Accounting, Genetic Biology, and Mechanical Engineering. In other words, if all I need is a college education why not take the easy courses?
    The third significant problem is the interference of the federal government. Perhaps politicians see the opportunity for garnering additional young people votes or perhaps even have a misguided understanding of market economics. This has led to subsidizing college educations with taxpayer funds. In effect, the federal government is using your money to entice young people to do the wrong thing. However, you stand for this obvious stupidity, because you likely believe also that there is some advantage to you and your children. There is not. Your children will not mature under the system of living at home. They will have wasted your and taxpayer funds in an education of insignificant value to improve their own economic situations and aid in the development of the country.