Our Far-Flung Alumni: Doug Cleland

September 7, 2013

Doug ClelandDoug Cleland, an early 1970s graduate of Earlham with a major in Economics has announced he will retire as Lower Merion (PA) Township Manager at the end of January, 2014.  Cleland has served Lower Merion, a suburb of Philaldelphia, for 29 years, more than 20 of them as Township Manager.  One of Lower Merion’s elected Commissioners referred to him as a “superstar.” At the meeting where he announced his retirement, the President of the Board of Commissioners praised his  “significant and valuable service to the community.”

The full story from the Main Line Times can be found here.

Posted in Our Far-Flung Alumni | Leave a comment

Meanings: “Upshot”

August 24, 2013

I recently wrote up some minutes from a meeting and used the word “upshot” to refer to the conclusion reached after a long discussion. Another member of the committee noted that “upshot” has its origin in archery, and first recorded use (says the OED) is from 1531.

But how did we get from archery to a result or a conclusion? Here is Take Our Word For It on the etymology:

 

Have you heard of “scope creep”?  Well, what we have here is “definition creep”.  Originally upshot, first recorded in 1531, referred to the final shot in an archery match.  Then it came to figuratively refer to any “parting shot”.  By 1591 Edmund Spenser used it to mean “a mark or end aimed for” — still that archery connection.  At the same time the general meaning of “an end, conclusion, or termination” also arose.  Just a few years later, Shakespeare, in his Hamlet, used the word to mean “result, issue, or conclusion of some course of action”.  And in 1639, in a translation of Balzac’s Letters, the word is used to mean “the conclusion resulting from the premises of an argument”.  So, while the overall “conclusory” sense remains throughout, the meaning shifted from one of archery to one of arguments.

 

Posted in Meanings | Leave a comment

Meanings: “Crayon”

July 9, 2013

The etymology is straightforward, from the French for “pencil,” which originally meant a chalk pencil.  We graduate from crayons as we become adults, don’t we? Only children use them, or children occasionally assisted by their parents. The names of crayons (think “burnt sienna,” think “silver”) bring back memories:

crayon for adultsh/t: Tastefully Offensive

Posted in Meanings | Leave a comment

Liberal Arts Versus Technical/Career Education

June 29, 2013

A recent New York Times column by Verlyn Klinkenborg lamenting the decline of English majors has reignited a long smouldering disagreement about what students should study in college. The disagreement has various faces but is usually posed as one between “the liberal arts” as a focus of study versus a view that urges a more technical or career focused education.

Periodically we read urgings that more young people should think about their job future when they pick a major. In 2011, Florida’s Governor Rick Scott urged the state stop funding the liberal arts and social sciences because “We don’t need a lot more anthropologists in the state. I want to spend our dollars giving people science, technology, engineering, math degrees. So when they get out of school, they can get a job.”  On the other hand, the liberal arts have their sturdy proponents, and the case is ably marshaled by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, which relentlessly demonstrates that employers really want students who have the reading, writing and critical thinking that a liberal arts education engenders.

Against Klinkenborg’s lament, Nate Silver, the NYT’s skilled and resourceful blogger about politics (and formerly baseball) rejoins–as he often does in arguments–that Klinkenborg has misread the data: that there really isn’t any decline in English majors; it is only that more students are going to college.  I enjoy reading both Silver and Klinkenborg, and discussion between them is a rare treat.

Silver also takes Klinkenborg to task in part for paying too much attention to what is happening at a small number of prestigious, highly selective colleges and universities.  Hurray! I want to say. The higher education press (such as it is) always pays  too much attention to what happens at Harvard, Yale and its ilk; but what happens at these places bears no relationship whatsoever to what is happening at other colleges and universities.  None whatsoever.

Silver mounts his argument by computing how many students major in various fields relative to the number of total students or total potential students. (The federal government collects such data.) But this doesn’t really get at the heart of the matter, I want to say. It is not the title of the major that makes a field of student part of the liberal arts. It is the approach to education. To come back to Gov. Scott’s nemesis, an anthropology major might be taught in a fashion that made it a proper part of the liberal arts, or it might be taught in a more technical, narrow, career-preparing manner.

When I was Provost at Reed College, I came across an old admissions poster for Reed as “a college of liberal sciences and arts. “Sciences and arts” — a reversal of the usual order, “arts and sciences.” I think Reed was trying to emphasize that the sciences are fully a part of their education, which is certainly on the “liberal arts” side of the debate. When this debate catches fire, people are usually forgetting that mathematics, biology, chemistry, geology and physics are all majors to be found at nearly all liberal arts colleges.

When I was an American Council on Education Fellow in 1987-88, I was fortunate to have David Fraser, then President of Swarthmore as a mentor. David is a superb epidemiologist: at the Center for Disease Control he led the 1976 team that rapidly found the cause of Legionnaire’s Disease, for example. While at Swarthmore, he published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled Epidemiology as a Liberal Art.He makes the case, but he makes the case as a ‘for instrance’ rather than as a stand alone case for the inclusion of one field of study.

This paragraph from the conclusion is worth quoting:

Perhaps there is no subject that cannot be fit material for liberal arts study. But surely that does not mean that selection is unimportant in designing an undergraduate program. The perspective from which the discipline is taught is important. A skilled teacher not only introduces students to the content and methods of a discipline, but also fosters in those students an inclination to use those methods to go further. Under a good teacher, students progress from simply taking in knowledge to questioning assumptions and arguments (their own or others’).

That’s the point: “the perspective from which the discipline is taught is important.”  Fraser makes case for both breadth and depth, and adds,

A student should study deeply enough in one area to develop real competence. Such depth gives a student an important sense of the construction of human knowledge and how to add to it. It opens to students the possibility of intellectual leadership.

“The possibility of intellectual leadership:” I like that way of putting it.

Klinkenborg wants students to read well, write clearly, and think critically. So do wise employers. Both should look deeper than the label on a major to find out whether a student has learned these things.

Posted in Learning | Leave a comment

Our Far-Flung Alumni: James McKenzie Coate, Sr.

June 28, 2013

Accomplishments, diverse interests, commitments to service and an active life are all signatures of Earlham graduates. All describe James McKenzie Coate Sr., an attorney in Philadelphia who was also a very active amateur musician. He was also a Quaker. He passed away this past Saturday at age 87.

Here is a link to the obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

Posted in Our Far-Flung Alumni | Leave a comment

Meanings: Geek vs. Nerd

June 20, 2013

Geek or Nerd? Think these mean the same thing, or is there a difference?  FlowingData has a lovely visualization based on tweets to show how people use the two terms:

geeknerd-plot-01

Posted in Meanings | 1 Comment

Meanings: “Love”

June 12, 2013

“Love” is an essential four letter Anglo Saxon word. The Etymology.com entry is below.

Today is a good day to think about loving because it is the anniversary (the 46th) of the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which brought an end to miscegenation laws in the United States.  The plaintiffs were Mildred and Richard Loving, an inter-racial couple who were convicted in Virginia of violating the state’s anti-miscegenation law. At the time of the decision, sixteen states still had miscegenation laws.

love (n.) Look up love at Dictionary.com

Old English lufu “love, affection, friendliness,” from Proto-Germanic *lubo (cf. Old High German liubi “joy,” German Liebe “love;” Old Norse, Old Frisian, Dutch lof; German Lob “praise;” Old Saxon liof, Old Frisian liaf, Dutch lief, Old High German liob, German lieb, Gothic liufs “dear, beloved”).

The Germanic words are from PIE *leubh- “to care, desire, love” (cf. Latin lubet, later libet “pleases;” Sanskrit lubhyati “desires;” Old Church Slavonic l’ubu “dear, beloved;” Lithuanian liaupse “song of praise”).

“Even now,” she thought, “almost no one remembers Esteban and Pepita but myself. Camilla alone remembers her Uncle Pio and her son; this woman, her mother. But soon we shall die and all memory of those five will have left the earth, and we ourselves shall be loved for a while and forgotten. But the love will have been enough; all those impulses of love return the love that made them. Even memory is not necessary for love. There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.” [Thornton Wilder, "Bridge of San Luis Rey," 1927]

Meaning “a beloved person” is from early 13c. The sense “no score” (in tennis, etc.) is 1742, from the notion of “playing for love,” i.e. “for nothing” (1670s). Phrase for love or money “for anything” is attested from 1580s. Love seat is from 1904. Love-letter is attested from mid-13c.; love-song from early 14c. To fall in love is attested from early 15c. To be in love with (someone) is from c.1500. To make love is from 1570s in the sense “pay amorous attention to;” as a euphemism for “have sex,” it is attested from c.1950. Love life “one’s collective amorous activities” is from 1919, originally a term in psychological jargon. Love affair is from 1590s. The phrase no love lost (between two people) is ambiguous and was used 17c. in reference to two who love each other well (c.1640) as well as two who have no love for each other (1620s).

Posted in Meanings | Leave a comment