Quite recently, there were a few articles and reports, all of which point to attempts to re-think the future of liberal arts like the future of department for French, and even the tenure of professors. The writing is all over the wall. That, in this season of budget squeeze and belt-tightening everywhere, schools can't afford to pay for everything. In short, something has to give. With its salary prospect being so much lower than practical subjects like Computer Science, and the ensuing dwindling student enrollment, liberal arts programs are the one of those whose existence is hardest to justify. The same goes with the rewriting of tenured professorship, which goes against the rationale of paying performance with rewards. Given a tenure at hand already, it's not hard to imagine how that would provide for a highly prized lifetime meal ticket that doesn't require much work for. For those of us who work in the private sectors when you have to work hard, year on year, just to stay in the game, the idea of a tenure is quite unjust and almost obscene.
To be honest, I never find the idea of tenure (be it professors or teachers) appetizing. Afterall, why is academia so different from the rest of the world anyways? Are these group of people really doing something so differently, and the work being so different, that they have to be treated on a completely different parallel universe? I don't think so.
On the other hand, just the idea of eliminating liberal arts program saddens me. It's true that salary and job prospects of straight liberal arts students have never been very good, never mind that it's much worse now, in this recession season. Over the lifetime of the students, that salary/job gap of liberal arts versus practical science majors grow ever more wider. But, does it really mean that we, as a society, can and should do without liberal arts, like history, language and art? I would consider it very, very short term vision, for anyone to even propose the idea that we can do without it. Afterall, that's part of our civilization, without the foundation of which, we will never grow, not to mention thrive.
Asians are mostly practical people. You would rarely find any college or university in Asia that stands out with its liberal arts faculty, like, say, what you would find in University of Chicago. Granted that Asia is on the up and up these days, and everyone raves about how many science graduates they're churning out every year from their universities, but I can tell you that, alot of Asians look to the west with admiration, in part because of the diversity in their programs that one can never find in any university in Asia. For anyone to even suggest that our universities should emulate what is practiced in the east, simply because their economy is on its upswing, just goes to show how short-sighted that statement is.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
On the mainland Chinglish...
If you know proper Chinese and have even just casual command of English, you would find the ridiculous Chinglish amusing, even entertaining.
There is nothing to laugh about, if someone has no knowledge of it. One would think that, for public signs and displays, governments and companies should at least be a little bit more care in ensuring that nothing is lost (or added) in translation. The way it is now, is a public disgrace and really quite silly, particularly for an emerging world power like China.
There is nothing to laugh about, if someone has no knowledge of it. One would think that, for public signs and displays, governments and companies should at least be a little bit more care in ensuring that nothing is lost (or added) in translation. The way it is now, is a public disgrace and really quite silly, particularly for an emerging world power like China.
On the right of the poor to live in expensive neighborhood...
I read alot of news everyday, and I usually save the links to jog down thoughts in my journal here when I get the chance to do so. Being quite busy as I am this month, I only get to do some writing on the Thanksgiving Day, when things are quiet. (And no, I'm not so keen in meeting my mother-in-law, who rebuffs me 14 years earlier without even knowing my name, and who disowns my husband for marrying. But that's a story for another day.)
A few weeks ago, I was reading BBC News, on the row over housing benefits that subsidize the poor to live in expensive neighborhood.
I'm always quite ambivalent about the subject. The housing benefits resemble the rent control in New York, which allows those with lesser means to live in NYC where rents can get astronomical. I can most certainly understand the noble cause behind it, although I can't say if the execution of it is as fair and just.
I grew up in Hong Kong. In a place as small and expensive (particularly in rents) as Hong Kong, when the juxtaposition of the very rich and the poor can be stark, there has never been much about that. Why? Because the colonial government (prior to the handover of sovereignty from British to China in 1997) has done a very good job in providing and maintaining very decent public housing for average joes and the poor. Unlike those in US, public housing estates in Hong Kong were and still are very decent, with reasonably low rents and good maintenance. There's no stigma for living in public housing. As a matter of fact, you would be considered lucky to get a public housing unit from application (with long waiting list) or lottery. The colonial government has also made a point of softly peddling segregation of the areas, so that the highly prized areas (that are considered rich neighborhoods), like the Peak and Mid-levels, or in the south side of the island, would not suddenly have a public housing project erected next to it. One could say that, the exclusivity of those areas is almost obscene; but the colonial government has done a good job in walking that fine line. While the public housing provides a stable, safe, and cheap environment for the lower middle class to thrive (and to strive for their upward mobility), it allows the price of the nice neighborhoods to maintain their prices and values. That works out quite well, and nobody ever complains.
But what came next, after the pre-1997 colonial government became the post-1997 puppet government for Beijing, things change. Granted that there were situations beyond anyone's control, namely, the 1997 financial meltdown that started from Asia, the subsequent handling of the acute housing needs by the first chief executive of the government, Tung Chee-Hwa, has generated so much angst and despise by general public, that he was nicknamed 85000, short for the huge number of public housing that he aimed to add to the market to placard public needs.
Why the despise and angst, you would ask? Afterall, it's a noble goal to provide for the average citizenry. Nobody would dispute the nobility of the goal, but the execution was horrible. The government, under Tung, picked the prized areas (eg. some of which have water views that everyone would die for) to build public housing projects. Surely, whoever gets the lottery to win one of the public housing units in these new projects are going to grin ear-to-ear. At the same time, it generates so much dismay to those who see the value of the once expensive neighborhood came down so much, not only from the financial meltdown, but also from the influx of cheap public housing that private citizens would pay millions of dollars to buy. General public was appalled as well, since they see the general property prices going down the tube. In the surreal Hong Kong where its economic well-being ties so much with property development, nothing good can become of it. The end result? Nobody was happy, except those few who got lucky to win a public housing unit.
Perhaps due to the observations over the years, and that noble goals don't always translate well into practice, I can't say I'm that hot on the idea of force-integration of mixing the very rich with the poor. Yes yes, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but I have to get that out of my chest, because it's true.
The way I see it, if the government has done a decent job in providing decent public housing and transportation for the public, there should not have been any stigma or trepidation in occupying a public housing unit. Afterall, my family lived in one when I was growing up, and we love it. The togetherness of the middle class families along the corridor, and the kids next door, was great. This is unlike the scare in even driving by public housing projects in US, when one would fear for one's own life, ranging from robbery, rape, and even drive-by shooting. To me, it's a disgrace for government to just erect public housing projects, without follow-up to ensure a safe neighborhood, that puts such a stigma on the idea of public housing. The essence of public housing is still as sound as ever.
So, you would ask, do I support housing subsidy in UK, or rent control in NYC, or forced mix income neighborhood in Boston? I can't say I do, albeit the noble goal. Such measures are not unlike the school vouchers in US. These are just the quick-fix that government opts out of fixing something that needs to be fixed. Instead of trying to fix public schools, they would give school vouchers and allow citizenry to opt of the poor public facilities (education or housing), and go for the private ones, at a substantial cost. To me, that's just wrong.
A few weeks ago, I was reading BBC News, on the row over housing benefits that subsidize the poor to live in expensive neighborhood.
I'm always quite ambivalent about the subject. The housing benefits resemble the rent control in New York, which allows those with lesser means to live in NYC where rents can get astronomical. I can most certainly understand the noble cause behind it, although I can't say if the execution of it is as fair and just.
I grew up in Hong Kong. In a place as small and expensive (particularly in rents) as Hong Kong, when the juxtaposition of the very rich and the poor can be stark, there has never been much about that. Why? Because the colonial government (prior to the handover of sovereignty from British to China in 1997) has done a very good job in providing and maintaining very decent public housing for average joes and the poor. Unlike those in US, public housing estates in Hong Kong were and still are very decent, with reasonably low rents and good maintenance. There's no stigma for living in public housing. As a matter of fact, you would be considered lucky to get a public housing unit from application (with long waiting list) or lottery. The colonial government has also made a point of softly peddling segregation of the areas, so that the highly prized areas (that are considered rich neighborhoods), like the Peak and Mid-levels, or in the south side of the island, would not suddenly have a public housing project erected next to it. One could say that, the exclusivity of those areas is almost obscene; but the colonial government has done a good job in walking that fine line. While the public housing provides a stable, safe, and cheap environment for the lower middle class to thrive (and to strive for their upward mobility), it allows the price of the nice neighborhoods to maintain their prices and values. That works out quite well, and nobody ever complains.
But what came next, after the pre-1997 colonial government became the post-1997 puppet government for Beijing, things change. Granted that there were situations beyond anyone's control, namely, the 1997 financial meltdown that started from Asia, the subsequent handling of the acute housing needs by the first chief executive of the government, Tung Chee-Hwa, has generated so much angst and despise by general public, that he was nicknamed 85000, short for the huge number of public housing that he aimed to add to the market to placard public needs.
Why the despise and angst, you would ask? Afterall, it's a noble goal to provide for the average citizenry. Nobody would dispute the nobility of the goal, but the execution was horrible. The government, under Tung, picked the prized areas (eg. some of which have water views that everyone would die for) to build public housing projects. Surely, whoever gets the lottery to win one of the public housing units in these new projects are going to grin ear-to-ear. At the same time, it generates so much dismay to those who see the value of the once expensive neighborhood came down so much, not only from the financial meltdown, but also from the influx of cheap public housing that private citizens would pay millions of dollars to buy. General public was appalled as well, since they see the general property prices going down the tube. In the surreal Hong Kong where its economic well-being ties so much with property development, nothing good can become of it. The end result? Nobody was happy, except those few who got lucky to win a public housing unit.
Perhaps due to the observations over the years, and that noble goals don't always translate well into practice, I can't say I'm that hot on the idea of force-integration of mixing the very rich with the poor. Yes yes, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but I have to get that out of my chest, because it's true.
The way I see it, if the government has done a decent job in providing decent public housing and transportation for the public, there should not have been any stigma or trepidation in occupying a public housing unit. Afterall, my family lived in one when I was growing up, and we love it. The togetherness of the middle class families along the corridor, and the kids next door, was great. This is unlike the scare in even driving by public housing projects in US, when one would fear for one's own life, ranging from robbery, rape, and even drive-by shooting. To me, it's a disgrace for government to just erect public housing projects, without follow-up to ensure a safe neighborhood, that puts such a stigma on the idea of public housing. The essence of public housing is still as sound as ever.
So, you would ask, do I support housing subsidy in UK, or rent control in NYC, or forced mix income neighborhood in Boston? I can't say I do, albeit the noble goal. Such measures are not unlike the school vouchers in US. These are just the quick-fix that government opts out of fixing something that needs to be fixed. Instead of trying to fix public schools, they would give school vouchers and allow citizenry to opt of the poor public facilities (education or housing), and go for the private ones, at a substantial cost. To me, that's just wrong.
On another royal wedding, but no illustion of fairy tale...
It's long time coming, but finally there's a bit of cheery news from the British royal family. At long last, Prince William has announced engagement with his girlfriend.
Such a déjà vu, when the Prince Charles and Diana announced their engagement back in 1981. Such happy times, with a fresh-faced and innocently looking Diana and the young prince. But of course we know how it all ends now, almost voyeuristically like the reality TV show, with blow-by-blow updates carefully leaked by Diana and counter-leaked by the royal PR machinery. There was the alleged infidelity of Charles, more infidelity by Diana, allegations of royal mistreatment to Diana who is as blue-blooded as anyone can get. Perhaps, the finally straw to the royal family's tolerance of a daughter-in-law ran astray was when Diana announced that she's the Princess of the Hearts, advocating the throne to bypass Charles and go straight to her kiddie son, William. That all ended, when Diana died in a car crash with her Egyptian lover. More tabloid news pursued when the Egyptian father wouldn't let go of a conspiracy theory that the car crash was orchestrated by the royal machinery to shut Diana up for good.
Every family has dirty laundry. Oftentimes, it takes two to tango, with faults on both sides (Charles' and Diana's). I don't have much sympathy for Charles, but at least he's been almost faithful to his long-time love interest, Camilla Parker Bowles, whom he eventually marries. I lose count of how many lovers or love interests that Diana had. She probably thought that, by staying pretty, everyone would love her, no matter what, however many lovers she'd have. I don't have sympathy for Diana either.
Regardless, what is past, is past. One can only wish luck for the two young royal couple-to-be that, being not as young and naive as Diana had been, they won't repeat the exact same errors that William's parents made. But the uncanny resemblance of every steps that Prince William and Kate Middleton are going through now, in honor of the traditions that the royals at Windsor are so proud of, doesn't look very promising.
But one thing is for sure, no one has any illusion about fairy tales, that the handsome prince will sweep the maiden off of her feet, take her to the castle, and they live happily ever after. These days, not even a 5-year-old girl would buy those tales anymore.
Such a déjà vu, when the Prince Charles and Diana announced their engagement back in 1981. Such happy times, with a fresh-faced and innocently looking Diana and the young prince. But of course we know how it all ends now, almost voyeuristically like the reality TV show, with blow-by-blow updates carefully leaked by Diana and counter-leaked by the royal PR machinery. There was the alleged infidelity of Charles, more infidelity by Diana, allegations of royal mistreatment to Diana who is as blue-blooded as anyone can get. Perhaps, the finally straw to the royal family's tolerance of a daughter-in-law ran astray was when Diana announced that she's the Princess of the Hearts, advocating the throne to bypass Charles and go straight to her kiddie son, William. That all ended, when Diana died in a car crash with her Egyptian lover. More tabloid news pursued when the Egyptian father wouldn't let go of a conspiracy theory that the car crash was orchestrated by the royal machinery to shut Diana up for good.
Every family has dirty laundry. Oftentimes, it takes two to tango, with faults on both sides (Charles' and Diana's). I don't have much sympathy for Charles, but at least he's been almost faithful to his long-time love interest, Camilla Parker Bowles, whom he eventually marries. I lose count of how many lovers or love interests that Diana had. She probably thought that, by staying pretty, everyone would love her, no matter what, however many lovers she'd have. I don't have sympathy for Diana either.
Regardless, what is past, is past. One can only wish luck for the two young royal couple-to-be that, being not as young and naive as Diana had been, they won't repeat the exact same errors that William's parents made. But the uncanny resemblance of every steps that Prince William and Kate Middleton are going through now, in honor of the traditions that the royals at Windsor are so proud of, doesn't look very promising.
But one thing is for sure, no one has any illusion about fairy tales, that the handsome prince will sweep the maiden off of her feet, take her to the castle, and they live happily ever after. These days, not even a 5-year-old girl would buy those tales anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)