On 3-year vs. 4-year college timeframe...

There will always be things that continue to baffle me, one of which is the resistance of American colleges, general public, and most certainly faculty members, in adopting 3-year college as the norm, rather than the existing 4-year system. Numerous opinions and theories are floated, including the note that students are not ready; or that it's just a cost-saving measure in disguise; or that it would not have helped the students, pushing them to graduate and get out to the depressing job market in this down economy right now (this one being the weakest supposition).

For those who put forth the arguments against 3-year college time frame, I wonder how many of them have really been exposed to such a realty. To those, I'd say, I have. I started my college in England, a much stricter term system, with a much more focused syllabus on the major that I've selected. Due to family reasons, I transferred and finished my undergrad study to Australia which follows the US semester system that lasts 4 years. And then, after I move to US, I took my masters degree as well. As such, I have a few opinions of my own.

True, the English system is much stricter, and much more elite-based. When you flunk a subject and couldn't get through the second take (last chance) of the exam, you would get kicked out. In a semester-based system like US or Australia or Canada, you can retake the subjects again and again, if you flunk it. Sure, you have to pay for it (tuition), but at least you get to stay in the school to keep trying. And in the English system, you have to know what you want, and then start the classes in your major rightaway. In US, you get to have one whole freshman year when you take general classes for everybody, and then you pick your major. Sure, you get an extra year to enjoy the idyllic college life and load up on alcohol and partying (pardon for the extreme generalization here); but to me, it's a waste of money and time, if the student (like myself) already know exactly what s/he wants.

For those who oppose to it, on the basis of costs saving alone, I'd say, sure if it can save students money/time, and save money for the school too, good for them! What's so evil about costs saving, if the costs are not really necessary?

As to those weakest argument, that we should not push those poor kids to graduate quicker, in order to face the grim prospect in this poor labor market, I'd say, there's no way to time the market. The same goes with advising students on what to major on, given what's hot in the job market right now, because by the time they graduate, everything could have changed. So, we should not have argued against 4-year college simply because job prospect is terrible right now.

I'd say, for the cost savings realized by the college, more scholarships should be granted to students, in order to benefit more to come; rather than extending college life span of those who have set foot on the campus already. The net effect of that should even be positive for faculty, admin, and alumni network (since you'll have more, rather than less alumni, since you're graduating more folks in a shorter time span).

So, the question goes back to this: Why not (for 3-year college)? What is it that is so bad about it? For those who're never exposed to the 3-year college life, they should try it before opening their mouth.

On politically incorrect parenting...

The other day, I caught up with a parent of one of the kids' classmates, and had a pretty long chat. Incidentally, I read this article too, on the almost politically incorrect parenting, and thought maybe I should jog down a few thoughts in the heat of the moment.

When I was growing up, my dad never raised his voice. While he's a mild-tempered guy, I've always speculated that the main reason is that, he never really has the chance. Not that me and my siblings are bad kids, but my dad has been working 14-16 hours a day, and he probably sees us only on our best behavior. So, he never has the need to raise his voice.

My mom, on the other hand, is a different matter. She's a stay-home mom, taking care of five kids, 24x7, 365 days a year, child-rearing non-stop. In all my childhood, I have only rare memory of playing or chit-chatting with my parents. The oft memory of my parents are their incredible work ethics, because they are always so very hard-working. The waking hours of my mom are all spent tending to us: walking us to/fro school, grocery shopping, cooking, doing dishes, ironing, cleaning, the list goes on. Just talking about the laundry-list of how my mom's day was like is a quite mouthful, that can tire you out already, not to mention actually doing it (as she did back then).

As my mom was also so busy doing chores, she has very little patience for arguments or things that go out-of-line. I'm, by nature, very head-strong and upfront about things. It's only natural that my mom and I have had big fights. When I was younger (probably before 13 or 14), I would get beaten up by mom for not listening to her. As I got older and a bit more mature, I tend to mellow down some, reducing the chance of having fights with her.

I remember I used to get really angry with her after each fight, condemning myself that I must not have been her real daughters, or else she would not have beaten me up like that. Thinking back, it's actually not so bad, since she has a rule, that she would never hit us in the head or body. She never used hard object for beating, opting for those elastic bamboo sticks that most traditional Chinese parents favor. Boy, I can tell you they leave big wedges and hurt like hell; but they don't really leave any scars after a day or two, and they don't leave any permanent damage.

Since I don't like being beaten up, I don't like to hit my kids either. Sure, I would raise my voice, or even yell at them to listen up, I rarely raise my hands. (There were probably couple of times when it has to come down to spanking, but I really hated doing it on my kids.) My husband does not agree with my philosophy. While he himself hates the beating in his childhood, he has come to see that as a useful child-rearing tool, to bring kids back in line. His philosophy almost goes hand-in-hand with what's said in the article. From his perspective, I'm like a toothless tiger (or dog) - it's all bark and no action.

Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes not. He used to wack the kids when they're young and don't listen. These days, the kids are pretty much conditioned to be afraid of him. And all parents know, that fear is a powerful tool. When the kids are scare, you'll get immediate actions, to bring them back in line.

Having said that, I've always had doubts. While effective, is his way (of making the kids afraid of him) the only way of parenting? Naturally not. I've always believed there are other ways and means. Sometimes when I look at other parents in school, particularly alot of American parents, they seem to be so calm and cool, and the kids would listen. I have always wondered how they did it. It's funny that, when I was talking about to that parent in my kids' school, she was wondering out loud of the same puzzlement. She was saying, other Japanese parents really admire the American way.

But then, as we're parents ourselves, we know for a fact that no parent will complete their child-rearing years without raising their voice. This parent I was talking to, she's very mild-mannered and soft-spoken. One would never be able to imagine how she would raise her voice in any foreseeable situations. So, you can imagine how surprised I am, when she confesses to me that she does that so often at home. The main angst came from her youngest child who has developmental delays. While she's very understanding and is learning the rope, patience can wear thin at times. What makes matter worse is that, her husband would question and almost criticize her for yelling. In response, she's telling him, if he would "do something," then maybe she wouldn't need to bear all the brunt to do all the yelling. THEN, maybe he would understand more where she's coming from, of why she's yelling, or feels the need to yell to get some results from the kids.

I guess that's the power of "support group." While I don't regret the way I rear my kids, I have always had wonders, as to how the other parents "did it." Guess what the response from this parent is? She said, "I don't believe it." As she sees it, sure the parents will put on the best behavior and face to it when they're in public. But she does not believe it one bit, that they're always in such good behavior and manner when they're at home, behind closed doors. And you know what, I agree with her.

Not that there's anything good or bad about it. As parents, we do what we can for the kids. I just wish that the kids would not periodically ask me to divorce their father, simply because they're afraid of him, and they don't want to go home when he's around. (Now that they're getting older, they have this concept of divorce already. Have I planted the wrong seeds in their head??)

On mental illness in China...

It's heartbreaking reading news in China when innocent school children are hacked by aggrieved and/or individuals with supposedly mentally illness. There's also report of the government's effort to try to brush over the reports.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News like that bring back some memory of a maternal uncle. I don't know much about him since my parents don't talk about him much. Even as a child, I know that the reason for the hush-hush was due to the fact that he's in a mental asylum, which is one major taboo subject in China. In China and even in Hong Kong, people treat mental patients as if they are invisible in a rather ostrich approach. The idea goes, that if you lock the "problem" away, and if you don't see it, it won't be a problem anymore...not on a daily basis anyways.

From the little that I gather from my mom, my uncle used to be a decorated army officer in China during World War II, and a rising star at that. He's tall (well over 6'1") and strongly built. And then, something happened... This is the part that either no one really knew what happened, or no one wanted to talk about it. I can never get a word from my parents or grandmother (before she died), as to what might have caused it. The only version of the story for his "condition" is that, some deceased distant great uncle had a grudge on my maternal grandfather, and his ghost tried to get back at our family by playing "tricks" in the mind of the only son (my uncle) in the family, in order to get even. Ah well, Chinese love ghost stories, and no one can ever dispute it anyways.

In any case, towards the end of WWII, my uncle "snapped" in the army, and was sent home to my grandmother like a damaged goods. No matter that he was a decorated army officer, nobody wanted him anymore, once he lost his mind. There was no pension, no follow-up, no medical treatment or help. Grandma was left with the caring and feeding of him. Although she's a relatively big woman by Chinese standard (5'6"), she's no match to my uncle in his prime 20s. Time and again, when he snapped, he would turn the house upside-down and even beat grandma. Other times, he would run out and be gone for days, and come back home destitute, without saying a word.

Grandma had treated so many times to get intervention and help from the government. Every time, she got the same answer, saying that it's her own problem since he's her son. And then, she got "lucky." One time, uncle stormed out of the house, roamed in the village, and snapped again; but this time, he hit some stranger. The villager complained to the local government official who, in turn, came to grandma's doorstep. She told him, there's nothing she could do because she couldn't restrain him to the house. If they wanted to prevent him from hurting other people, then they had to get him treatment in the hospital/asylum. That's when the government finally agreed to take uncle in to the local mental asylum, for free.

For the longest time, uncle stayed in that asylum. When I was a child, I have always wondered what kind of treatment my uncle got in the mental asylum. Some years later, I finally have had a look at what a mental asylum looks like in China, since my mother eventually agreed to take me and my sister to go see uncle there, when we become adults.

The condition in that local mental asylum was suitably depressing. My mom, sis and I went there with another auntie and two cousins. (From what I gather, my aunt visited him from time to time, maybe monthly, but the cousins rarely visited, if at all. I'm not sure if it might be due to superstition, since the local Chinese seem to consider mental illness like contagious diseases, for some reason. Or, perhaps, it's due to the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. But they're probably afraid too, to just look at mental patients.) The cousins came with us that time, since we were in such a large group.

We arrived at the gate where the reception area was, which was just a small window with an attendant. We announced the patient's name for a visit, and were told to wait. There was a broken down bench; other that, it's just concrete wall. From the front, there's view into a much larger holding ground, with wired fence around it. There, we saw maybe a hundred or so mental patients who were walking about mindlessly around in the fenced-in area. There was no eye contact, no talking, no sitting, no loitering. All the mental patients were just shifting their feet sluggishly in there. Off to one side of the reception area, there's a short corridor that leads to a room where there're maybe 6-8 beds in there. We didn't realize it until we heard screaming from down the corridor. We looked, and we saw a few patients strapped down to their beds in there. The screaming came from a guy, pretty strong built, who refused to be restrained. With much difficulty, three small men who worked in the hospital were trying to pin him down. There was no equipment in there; just beds, and patients/workers (they didn't even look like doctors or nurses).

After much waiting, my uncle was finally led out by a hospital worker. He was tall, by all account. Although he's in his 60s by then, with greying hair and all, he's still very strongly built, with eyes darting everywhere. Mom and aunt told us that uncle used to be much stronger and bigger, but the asylum feeds very little to the patients. Aunt tried to visit from time to time, leaving food and cigarettes behind for him, but was told by uncle that he was robbed of anything that was left with him inside the asylum. So, he learnt to just eat and smoke as much as he could only during the visitation. That time, mom and aunt brought him some soup, noodles, and cigarettes. Uncle recognized mom and aunt, and knew none of the rest of us. He even uttered "sis" to them, which brought tears to mom's eyes. She would later tell us that, this was the first time for a very, very long time that he ever showed any recognition for anyone, not to mention uttering any words at all. We didn't talk, and just watch him squatting, eating and finishing his smoke. Aunt tried to give him something to bring back in, but he refused. After that, he went back in, without saying another word or turning his head. That was the first (and last) time I ever met him.

My grandma had passed away for a few years at that point. My uncle died maybe a year or so after that visit. When mom told me about it, she almost sounded relieved. For some 30 years, the families had lived with the taboo and the caring of uncle, with no resources or help from anyone. But finally the pain was gone.

Those were the days before TV and news became commonplace in China. Would it have put wrong ideas in uncle's head, if he saw news of people hacking at children, so that he'd go out and do copycat deeds? No one could tell. But for the central government to try to push aside a taboo subject like how to deal with mental illness, it's a disservice to the populace. Before any resources would be allocated, there has to be recognition of the issue/problem, then debate on the alternative solutions. Since that one encounter with the mental asylum in China, there does not look to be much changes in the horizon. It's an opportunity wasted. Perhaps, all these news could serve as catalyst for something to be done. That would be one silver lining from it all.

On Greek sovereign debt, taxes, and cheating...

Markets worldwide have been on roller-coaster ride recently, due to the downgrade of Greece sovereign debts and its ramifications on the stability and ongoing viability of Euro, should Greece default on its debts. European leaders hate to admit defeat, allowing an opening for IMF to step in to help bail out Greece; at the same time, quite some Euro members, most notably, Germany, do not feel compelled to automatically bail out Greece, without Greece feeling at least some pain.

That's all well and good. Afterall, Greek officials have recently been announcing its plan with painful austerity measures, resulting in protests.

A few things stood out though:

• Despite the poor track record, and the potential for defaults, investors are still rushing to the recent Greece bond sale. Perhaps there really is too much liquidity in the system worldwide, that investors don't care if the inherent risks could well outweigh the high yield that the latest Greek bonds are offering. Perhaps too, investors are all confident that somehow EU is going to come to the rescue, however reluctantly, to Greece, and underwrite its debts. Still, the bipolar messages from the markets - that Greece is dangerously close to default, yet investors would still lend to it - are exactly the kind of recipe for disaster, much like the underlying cause for the subprime mortgage crisis in US. Too bad, Euro is in a bind, and doesn't seem to have a choice, regardless of how bad Greece behaves.
• Which leads to the second thing about Greece. Granted that Greece is not the only country in Euro zone who fails the 3% limit of debts over GDP, afterall, big guys like France have failed the litmus test for years with no ramification, why in the world should Greece care?! But the fact remains, that Greece has been opening cooking its books, reporting false statistics about the true state of its economy for some two decades, yet no one would do anything about it. No one wants to spoil the party, and tell the emperor that he has no clothes on. The austerity plan from Greek officials is to try to bring the grey and blackmarkets (all the cash economy that generates wealth, not those reported on tax forms) out to the open. By some reports, the grey and blackmarkets in Greece accounts for at least 20-30% of the real economy. It would be hard, because basically everyone in Greece is lying and cheating on their tax forms, in some forms and fashion.
• Which brings me to the last thought about Greece. What the Greek officials had been doing, in lying and cheating on the official false statistics of the country's economy and state of health, is essentially the kind of lying and cheating that every other Greeks are doing. And if no one has confidence to really expect average Greeks to suddenly turn about and hand over their tax dollars, why would anyone have any confidence in the Greek officials doing so, by enforcing the austerity measures? Afterall, the Greek government never seriously attempts to prosecute any tax cheaters; neither would Greece, as a country, be seriously punished by not sticking to the published austerity measures. In essence, the Euro pact is all carrots and no stick. Everyone knows that Greece will be bailed out, one way or the other, all in the name of saving the face/ego of Euro.
  

Does that sound disgusting to you? It certainly does to me. I'm not an economist or politician, so I won't even attempt to offer any solution or insight to this whole mess. Since the inception of Euro, I have always marveled at how Euro, both as a currency and as a cohesion pack among the Eurozone members, could pull it together. I guess you could say, that I've never had the faith, believing how a continent as diverse as Europe, with so much differences in culture, languages, economy, and more, could be peacefully glued together, without ceding sovereignty. I still don't.

PS: I guess if I have been a German voter, I would have been voting against the Greece bailout as well, much as I was and still am opposed to the bailouts of banks and subprime mortgagees. If you want someone to learn, if you want them to understand that somehow their actions do have consequences, then you have to prepare to let them fail and suffer though it. Without that, you're simply staring down at a bigger disaster down the road.