When I told my mother that I was reading about research on education, she said, "They should consider how much time people spend looking at the sky, because that helps you learn. People should spend more time looking at the sky. But not when they're driving." It's true. A fancier way to say it is that we should consider whether allowing ample processing time enhances learning. I remember when Chak was finishing up his PhD, he often mentioned that in his Acknowledgements section, he was going to mention his shower, because that's where he got many of his inspirations.
Sometimes with all the emphasis on No Child Left Behind and being competitive in the global marketplace, it seems like we should be jamming information into students as much as possible, but maybe that's not the best approach. Maybe students' time should be more balanced, so they have time to chew on and digest what they have learned before they spit it back out for the exam and then promptly forget it.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Education vs. Research
A candidate for a job at a university may be asked about his/her view about education vs. research, or such a candidate may ask the same about the university. Either way, the answer always seems to be that both are important, and that good research makes education better. However, in practice, there can be a lot of variation in how much emphasis is placed on each.
When I first came to my job, I felt that faculty and staff worked together to serve students. Now I still feel that my purpose is to serve students, but somehow this seems to have become a minority viewpoint. It seems that increasingly, the prevailing view is that the purpose of faculty is to write grant proposals, and the purpose of staff is to serve the faculty.
On more than one occasion, people have commented that we should not emphasize undergraduates or education too much in our publications or web site, because if we do, people will think that we are not a prestigious research university.
Sometimes I feel that faculty think students are good to the extent that they work on research, but that otherwise, anything faculty have to do dealing with students (such as advising or teaching or meeting prospective students) is considered an interruption to their real work.
I do think research is a good thing. It's good to learn more about the world, to explore ideas, to find out what does and doesn't work. That's what research should be about, though too often it seems to be more about getting money, not only in the university context, but also in business and in nonprofit organizations.
Though I think research is a good thing, I think that universities are educational institutions, and as such, the primary goal should be education. I do believe that research is a part of education. We want to teach students to be learners, and that's what research is, it's the process of continually learning more about the world.
I know that research prestige may attract the best faculty and students and may open doors for graduates of the school. I know that money is needed in order to run a university. Perhaps it's because I'm not in the position of having to run a university, that I can afford to be idealistic. But in my view, our goal should not be to bring in research funding but to educate students.
When I first came to my job, I felt that faculty and staff worked together to serve students. Now I still feel that my purpose is to serve students, but somehow this seems to have become a minority viewpoint. It seems that increasingly, the prevailing view is that the purpose of faculty is to write grant proposals, and the purpose of staff is to serve the faculty.
On more than one occasion, people have commented that we should not emphasize undergraduates or education too much in our publications or web site, because if we do, people will think that we are not a prestigious research university.
Sometimes I feel that faculty think students are good to the extent that they work on research, but that otherwise, anything faculty have to do dealing with students (such as advising or teaching or meeting prospective students) is considered an interruption to their real work.
I do think research is a good thing. It's good to learn more about the world, to explore ideas, to find out what does and doesn't work. That's what research should be about, though too often it seems to be more about getting money, not only in the university context, but also in business and in nonprofit organizations.
Though I think research is a good thing, I think that universities are educational institutions, and as such, the primary goal should be education. I do believe that research is a part of education. We want to teach students to be learners, and that's what research is, it's the process of continually learning more about the world.
I know that research prestige may attract the best faculty and students and may open doors for graduates of the school. I know that money is needed in order to run a university. Perhaps it's because I'm not in the position of having to run a university, that I can afford to be idealistic. But in my view, our goal should not be to bring in research funding but to educate students.
Values
It seems that the word "values" is often used to mean "conservative values." I'm a liberal, but I have strong values too. I strive to be kind, honest, and fair in all that I do. I don't gamble, drink, smoke, or swear. I'm a vegetarian. I use mouse traps that catch mice alive and then I drive the mice I catch out to the country.
I try to live in ways that are good for the environment. I recycle and buy recycled products, I buy organic food, I walk to work, I use cloth rags and towels rather than paper towels, and I use environmentally friendly personal care and household cleaning products. One of my family traditions is to re-use wrapping paper. The trick is to hold things together with ribbon instead of with tape. On Christmas Day as we unwrap our gifts, we have the ribbon box and the paper box in the middle of the floor. As we unwrap each gift, we fold up the ribbon and paper and put each in the appropriate box. Then when we are done, we are all cleaned up and have the paper and ribbons ready for next year.
When choosing which companies to do business with or invest in, I'm guided not only by cost and convenience, but whether the company's practices are in line with my values. I do business with financial institutions which practice socially responsible investing.
I prefer community over big business. I avoid malls because I don't like being in such a materialistic environment. I prefer to shop at small, local businesses rather chains. I garden and go to the farmer's market. I believe kids and grownups should spend little time on computer games and TV, and plenty of time on playing outdoors, playing with kids, playing with grownups, running around, dancing, reading, and doing creative things, whether it's building furniture, drawing pictures, making music, doing pottery, writing, or some other sort of arts, crafts, or engineering. When I hang out with others, I prefer to do something outdoors or at someone's home rather than going somewhere such as a bar, restaurant, or mall.
I've heard people complain that people should not bring their kids to restaurants. "Advice goddess" Amy Alkon says that kids should not be brought to a wedding reception. She writes, "Who says America isn't a monarchy? It's ruled by millions of tiny tyrants named Cody and Madison, presiding over adult-sized serfs called parents whose single greatest fear is not being liked by their children." I find her disrespectful attitude toward kids offensive. I don't believe kids should be spoiled, but I don't think spoiling comes from including kids in activities. Instead, it comes from indulging kids with too many material things and failing to expect them to behave responsibly. I believe kids are part of the family and should be listened to and treated with respect.
I think it's wrong to condemn people based on concrete things such as religious affiliation or the number or gender of one's of sexual partners. Instead, I think the measure of morality is in treating others with kindness, respect, and honesty. People sometimes interpret liberals' tolerance of diversity as spinelessness, as not taking a stand for what is right. We have beliefs about what is right, they just aren't the same as what the conservatives believe. Conservatives see immorality in diverse sexual practices. I see immorality in the discrimination which our country institutionalizes in its marriage laws. Liberals show that they have strong moral beliefs when they express their objections to war, holding prisoners at Guantanamo without trial, torture, capital punishment, permissive gun laws, and animal testing.
Some people think it must take a lot of self-repression to avoid swearing and alcohol and meat and junk food, but it doesn't. Meat-eaters don't feel deprived if they live on a diet which does not include split peas or tofu, and in the same way, I don't feel deprived by how I live. To me, my lifestyle is much more fun and interesting than what is considered a mainstream lifestyle.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Research should serve a purpose
Usually students in the social sciences take courses in research and statistics because it's required, not because they want to. They go through the motions of designing studies, analyzing data, etc., because it's required, but they don't think it will be useful in their life outside school. At least that was my experience with my classmates.
Out in the workplace, schools do evaluations because it's required for their accreditation. Human services agencies collect data because it's required for their funding. They hate doing it and feel like it's a waste of time.
Research has the potential to be valuable. For example, some people claim that educating teenagers about contraceptives will prevent unwanted pregnancies, thus decreasing abortion rates. Others claim that educating teenagers about contraceptives will encourage premarital sex, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies and the abortion rate. Research is the way we can get some actual facts about the impact of sex education programs.
Research that is done just to go through the motions because that's what we've been told what we're supposed to do is not really research. Research means seeking out information to find out what is actually going on in the world. If you have people fill out surveys, but the questions in the surveys are not useful questions, or if you don't use the results of the surveys, that you haven't really obtained useful information. People need to be less focused on going through the motions and think about what information they would actually like to obtain and use.
In school, I studied about control groups and so on. I learned about how to design a proper scientific study. However, that's not what I do in my work. In my work, I know I have to give an orientation at the beginning of each semester. I don't think I would gain much by doing a scientific study with a control group of students who don't get oriented. Instead, I want to get feedback from students about how orientation could be improved.
When I took research courses, we were encouraged to use multiple choice questionnaires so that the responses could be anaylzed with statistics. However, for the orientation, I don't really care about numerical ratings. What I do want to know is what the students' comments about the orientation are. Did certain parts put them to sleep? Was the font on the slides so small they couldn't read it? Would they rather not have slides at all? Was there anything they wanted to know that wasn't covered? Those are the kinds of things I need to know so that I can make orientation useful to students. In order to find those things out, I hand out an evaluation form with a few open-ended questions. I read the comments I get, and make changes to orientation based on this feedback.
The point is not that it's better to ask open-ended questions than to seek quantitative data. The point is that you should seek the sort of data that is actually going to be useful to you. People often believe that doing surveys and research is useless. It's not that research is inherently bad, but that too often, people go through the motions just for the sake of saying they are doing research. When people actually use the techniques of research to collect information they can use, then research is great. In fact, it seems like a waste of time not to do research, because then you are carrying out programs without getting any information on whether those programs are actually accomplishing their goals.
Out in the workplace, schools do evaluations because it's required for their accreditation. Human services agencies collect data because it's required for their funding. They hate doing it and feel like it's a waste of time.
Research has the potential to be valuable. For example, some people claim that educating teenagers about contraceptives will prevent unwanted pregnancies, thus decreasing abortion rates. Others claim that educating teenagers about contraceptives will encourage premarital sex, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies and the abortion rate. Research is the way we can get some actual facts about the impact of sex education programs.
Research that is done just to go through the motions because that's what we've been told what we're supposed to do is not really research. Research means seeking out information to find out what is actually going on in the world. If you have people fill out surveys, but the questions in the surveys are not useful questions, or if you don't use the results of the surveys, that you haven't really obtained useful information. People need to be less focused on going through the motions and think about what information they would actually like to obtain and use.
In school, I studied about control groups and so on. I learned about how to design a proper scientific study. However, that's not what I do in my work. In my work, I know I have to give an orientation at the beginning of each semester. I don't think I would gain much by doing a scientific study with a control group of students who don't get oriented. Instead, I want to get feedback from students about how orientation could be improved.
When I took research courses, we were encouraged to use multiple choice questionnaires so that the responses could be anaylzed with statistics. However, for the orientation, I don't really care about numerical ratings. What I do want to know is what the students' comments about the orientation are. Did certain parts put them to sleep? Was the font on the slides so small they couldn't read it? Would they rather not have slides at all? Was there anything they wanted to know that wasn't covered? Those are the kinds of things I need to know so that I can make orientation useful to students. In order to find those things out, I hand out an evaluation form with a few open-ended questions. I read the comments I get, and make changes to orientation based on this feedback.
The point is not that it's better to ask open-ended questions than to seek quantitative data. The point is that you should seek the sort of data that is actually going to be useful to you. People often believe that doing surveys and research is useless. It's not that research is inherently bad, but that too often, people go through the motions just for the sake of saying they are doing research. When people actually use the techniques of research to collect information they can use, then research is great. In fact, it seems like a waste of time not to do research, because then you are carrying out programs without getting any information on whether those programs are actually accomplishing their goals.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Would you like fries with that?
You order a burger and they say "Would you like fries with that?" You order a medium popcorn, and they say "Would you like a large for only 20 cents more?" You call a financial company and ask to cancel a service, and they go on and on about all the benefits you would get if you kept the service.
A restaurant employee who threw away some moldy strawberries was told, "Next time don't do that. We can cut off the moldy parts, and serve the parts that don't have mold on them."
If a company seems to be interested in giving me a quality product and helpful service, I am glad to give them my money, but I don't like dealing with businesses which are trying to squeeze a few more pennies out of me anyway they can. If I tell them what I want, they should have some respect for the fact that I know what I want, and not try to push more stuff on me. I have canceled accounts with companies for this reason.
I think we should start a movement that any time an employee tries to squeeze more money out of us, we say, "Never mind. I don't want to order at all." We should be polite to the employees, because they are just doing what their boss says. But it's a free market economy and if we don't like dealing with companies more interested in squeezing money out of us than in giving us what we want, then we can vote with our money and refuse to give them our business.
A restaurant employee who threw away some moldy strawberries was told, "Next time don't do that. We can cut off the moldy parts, and serve the parts that don't have mold on them."
If a company seems to be interested in giving me a quality product and helpful service, I am glad to give them my money, but I don't like dealing with businesses which are trying to squeeze a few more pennies out of me anyway they can. If I tell them what I want, they should have some respect for the fact that I know what I want, and not try to push more stuff on me. I have canceled accounts with companies for this reason.
I think we should start a movement that any time an employee tries to squeeze more money out of us, we say, "Never mind. I don't want to order at all." We should be polite to the employees, because they are just doing what their boss says. But it's a free market economy and if we don't like dealing with companies more interested in squeezing money out of us than in giving us what we want, then we can vote with our money and refuse to give them our business.
Measuring teaching
I read an article that had to do with how to measure how much teaching faculty are doing. Apparently the old way was to ask the professor what percent of their time they spent on teaching, research, and service. The problem with that is that one doesn't know how much teaching work actually gets done. According to the article, the new improved way of measuring teaching productivity had to do with counting the number of credit hours taught, and multiplying by the number of students taking the course.
To me, this is still not good enough. It is a measure of how much teaching gets done, but it gives no indication of the amount the students learn, and student learning is the point of teaching.
Student learning is difficult to measure. You could look at student grades on the assumption that good grades are an indication of mastering the material. However, anyone with any familiarity with education knows that student grades will vary from professor to professor depending on how a particular professor grades.
Another way is to use some sort of standardized test. All calculus classes in the university/state/country/world could have students take the same test at the end. The students' scores on this test would then not be determined by the professor's grading practices. The drawback of this approach is that standardized tests have a way of not entirely getting at what is important. Standardized tests may test memorization of specific items. A good education should also help students improve in things like critical thinking and creativity. Also, one size does not fit all. It may be beneficial for students in different regions or different disciplines or from different backgrounds to approach the subject matter in a different way.
Perhaps theoretically in any subject there is a defined body of knowledge which all students should learn. And perhaps theoretically one can devise tests of critical thinking skill as well as tests of content knowledge. However, developing a test which is appropriate for classes in different schools in different locations is so challenging as to be impossible for all practical purposes. ETS puts a lot of effort into it, but I don't think the SAT and GRE are very good measures.
Another idea is to use course evaluations. However, course evaluations may tend to be betterfor teachers who make the class fun and/or easy. These factors do not always result in better student learning. Certainly a teacher who gets the material across and makes it seem fun in easy is a good teacher. But the class could also seem fun and easy because the material is not being covered fully.
To overcome the limitations of course evaluations done at the end of the semester, one could survey students a year or two later, when they have taken more advanced courses which use the material they were supposed to have learned in the course being evaluated, or when they have needed to use the material in the workplace. Perhaps at this time, students will have a better perspective on how much they really learned in the course.
I think none of these approaches is perfect, but combining the approaches can give you a picture of how well the courses are succeeding in bringing about student learning.
To me, this is still not good enough. It is a measure of how much teaching gets done, but it gives no indication of the amount the students learn, and student learning is the point of teaching.
Student learning is difficult to measure. You could look at student grades on the assumption that good grades are an indication of mastering the material. However, anyone with any familiarity with education knows that student grades will vary from professor to professor depending on how a particular professor grades.
Another way is to use some sort of standardized test. All calculus classes in the university/state/country/world could have students take the same test at the end. The students' scores on this test would then not be determined by the professor's grading practices. The drawback of this approach is that standardized tests have a way of not entirely getting at what is important. Standardized tests may test memorization of specific items. A good education should also help students improve in things like critical thinking and creativity. Also, one size does not fit all. It may be beneficial for students in different regions or different disciplines or from different backgrounds to approach the subject matter in a different way.
Perhaps theoretically in any subject there is a defined body of knowledge which all students should learn. And perhaps theoretically one can devise tests of critical thinking skill as well as tests of content knowledge. However, developing a test which is appropriate for classes in different schools in different locations is so challenging as to be impossible for all practical purposes. ETS puts a lot of effort into it, but I don't think the SAT and GRE are very good measures.
Another idea is to use course evaluations. However, course evaluations may tend to be betterfor teachers who make the class fun and/or easy. These factors do not always result in better student learning. Certainly a teacher who gets the material across and makes it seem fun in easy is a good teacher. But the class could also seem fun and easy because the material is not being covered fully.
To overcome the limitations of course evaluations done at the end of the semester, one could survey students a year or two later, when they have taken more advanced courses which use the material they were supposed to have learned in the course being evaluated, or when they have needed to use the material in the workplace. Perhaps at this time, students will have a better perspective on how much they really learned in the course.
I think none of these approaches is perfect, but combining the approaches can give you a picture of how well the courses are succeeding in bringing about student learning.
Computing class rank
Portland High School eliminated their practice of computing class rank. The idea is that they will put a new policy in place in time for sending out transcripts of seniors applying to college. An example of a different kind of policy is to have summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude instead of specific ranks for everyone.
The reason why they suspended the class rank system: honors and AP classes counted for more than "general" classes. This was criticized as being discriminatory against minorities, because minorities are disproportionately represented in general classes.
I think honors and AP classes should count for more. I think this discriminates against people who don't do well academically, and this discrimination is exactly the purpose of class rank: do distinguish students from each other based on their academic achievement.
The problem is not the class rank system. The problem is that minorities are less likely to succeed in honors and AP classes. That is what we should be trying to fix.
And we should also remember that the measure of one's ability to do well in school is not the same as the measure of the value of what one contributes to society. A lot of the things someone can do to make a difference in the world have little to do with school performance.
The reason why they suspended the class rank system: honors and AP classes counted for more than "general" classes. This was criticized as being discriminatory against minorities, because minorities are disproportionately represented in general classes.
I think honors and AP classes should count for more. I think this discriminates against people who don't do well academically, and this discrimination is exactly the purpose of class rank: do distinguish students from each other based on their academic achievement.
The problem is not the class rank system. The problem is that minorities are less likely to succeed in honors and AP classes. That is what we should be trying to fix.
And we should also remember that the measure of one's ability to do well in school is not the same as the measure of the value of what one contributes to society. A lot of the things someone can do to make a difference in the world have little to do with school performance.
Teachers who ask questions
It is considered a good teaching practice to ask the students questions, but that doesn't mean all questions are good. You have to ask the right kind of questions and respond to them in the right way. Just the fact that you ask questions doesn't automatically mean you are being a good teacher.
I had a professor who asked the class questions, but I felt so insulted by the questions that I did not want to answer them. She was not interested in listening to what anyone had to say. She had a particular answer in mind. If the first person she asked gave a different answer, she would just move on and ask someone else. Then when she got to someone who gave the answer she wanted (or when she gave up asking) she would go on with the lecture exactly as she had planned it. There was not interaction, no response on her part to what students were thinking. Her questions did not enhance my learning, they just made me feel condescended to.
I had another professor who asked good questions. He asked questions that made me think. He would ask a question about something I had never thought about before, and his question would fill my head with ideas about the topic. That's the kind of questions teachers should ask.
I had a professor who asked the class questions, but I felt so insulted by the questions that I did not want to answer them. She was not interested in listening to what anyone had to say. She had a particular answer in mind. If the first person she asked gave a different answer, she would just move on and ask someone else. Then when she got to someone who gave the answer she wanted (or when she gave up asking) she would go on with the lecture exactly as she had planned it. There was not interaction, no response on her part to what students were thinking. Her questions did not enhance my learning, they just made me feel condescended to.
I had another professor who asked good questions. He asked questions that made me think. He would ask a question about something I had never thought about before, and his question would fill my head with ideas about the topic. That's the kind of questions teachers should ask.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Health care in the US
When I try to call my doctor, usually I get a busy signal or an answering machine saying the office is closed. I get the answering machine even during business hours. The answering machine does not invite me to leave a message. It just says call back when we are open. If I'm asking for a prescription refill, after I get through to a person, that person will transfer me to an answering machine where I listen to a message saying it may take them up to 48 hours to reply to any messages, and then they let me leave my information on the answering machine. If I ask them to call in my prescription to a pharmacy, they require me to give them the pharmacy phone number, so I look it up in the phone book. The pharmacy is two blocks from them. I would think that they might keep phone numbers of local pharmacies handy in their office.
When I go to my doctor for an annual checkup, she does spend time with me, but if I go in for a sick visit, she tends to seem rushed. I also get the impression that doctors think their function is to write prescriptions, and if my problem can't be cured with prescription drugs, then they aren't all that interested in it.
When I went to my doctor saying I was still feeling the effects of an illness I got some time ago, she sent me for a test to see if I still had the illness. It turns out, that test only works in the early stage of the illness. She didn't know that. Doctors are supposed to know stuff like that.
I think I have a relatively good doctor. Others I have been to were worse. My doctor usually sees me not too long after the scheduled time of my appointment. At another doctor's office, I usually had to wait a long time after the scheduled time of my appointment. I had another doctor notice a rash which I was not concerned about. I told her what it was, since it was a problem I had had before. She told me it was something different, and told me what to put on it. The thing she told me to put on it ended up making it worse. My brother was also made worse by a medicine a doctor recommended. Another doctor I saw pushed free samples of medications on me, even after I told him repeatedly that I did not want them and never had the symptoms that the medication was meant to alleviate. Some comments that were made about a doctor some of my family members went to: "He's not bad, especially if it's the nurse practitioner who sees you," and "He's okay as long as you're not sick."
I think my doctor is pretty conscientious. I think the problem is with the health care system. The impression I get is that the doctors I have been to are all dealing with too many patients, so they can't really give good attention to the patients or to their own learning. I think it's admirable that they continue as primary care physicians in the poor conditions created by our health care system, rather than become specialists who only help rich people.
I was reading about careers as a CNA. (That stands for certified nursing assistant.) It sounded terrible. Nursing homes and hospitals are so understaffed. Patients who can't go to the bathroom by themselves have to wait a long time to be taken to the bathroom by a CNA because the CNA has so many patients who all need care at the same time. Imagine the discomfort of not being able to go to the bathroom when you need to.
CNAs have a very tough job. They get little pay and little respect. If someone is working as a CNA, it's most likely that they put up with having such a terrible job because they actually care about helping people. Yet we drive these caring people out of the field because of the poor working conditions.
People talk about the placebo effect as if it's just about stupidity or something, that it's just wrong for patients to get better when given a pill that has not actual pharmacological effects. I think that many people miss the important lesson of the placebo effect. What the placebo effect tells us is that just having someone pay attention to you and care for you has a healing effect. The way our health care system is set up, so that health care professionals have to deal with many more patients than they have time for, is detrimental to healing. If doctors, nurses, CNAs, and others could really take the time to attend to the needs of patients, I think patients would be healthier and perhaps the needs for medications and surgeries would even decrease.
I went to a naturopathic doctor the other day. She explained that they study the things MD's study, but they also study things like homeopathy, clinical nutrition, etc. That seemed to make so much more sense to me. Doctors should not be limited to prescription drugs as the only tool for healing, when other remedies also exist. Doctors should be people who heal, by whatever means works, not people whose job is to write prescriptions.
It's easy to see that our health care system leaves a lot to be desired. I can find that out just by dialing my doctor's phone number and not being able to get through. The hard part is figuring out how to fix it. I don't like to hear people complaining about what morons the politicians are for not fixing health care. It's a difficult, complex problem which is not easily solved.
I think one of the difficulties has to do with the fact that we live in a capitalist system, and yet we believe that there are certain things, such as education and health care, which should be open to all. Wealthy people can get better health care. The problem is how to make health care available to all while at the same time funding it in such a way that high quality can be maintained.
When I go to my doctor for an annual checkup, she does spend time with me, but if I go in for a sick visit, she tends to seem rushed. I also get the impression that doctors think their function is to write prescriptions, and if my problem can't be cured with prescription drugs, then they aren't all that interested in it.
When I went to my doctor saying I was still feeling the effects of an illness I got some time ago, she sent me for a test to see if I still had the illness. It turns out, that test only works in the early stage of the illness. She didn't know that. Doctors are supposed to know stuff like that.
I think I have a relatively good doctor. Others I have been to were worse. My doctor usually sees me not too long after the scheduled time of my appointment. At another doctor's office, I usually had to wait a long time after the scheduled time of my appointment. I had another doctor notice a rash which I was not concerned about. I told her what it was, since it was a problem I had had before. She told me it was something different, and told me what to put on it. The thing she told me to put on it ended up making it worse. My brother was also made worse by a medicine a doctor recommended. Another doctor I saw pushed free samples of medications on me, even after I told him repeatedly that I did not want them and never had the symptoms that the medication was meant to alleviate. Some comments that were made about a doctor some of my family members went to: "He's not bad, especially if it's the nurse practitioner who sees you," and "He's okay as long as you're not sick."
I think my doctor is pretty conscientious. I think the problem is with the health care system. The impression I get is that the doctors I have been to are all dealing with too many patients, so they can't really give good attention to the patients or to their own learning. I think it's admirable that they continue as primary care physicians in the poor conditions created by our health care system, rather than become specialists who only help rich people.
I was reading about careers as a CNA. (That stands for certified nursing assistant.) It sounded terrible. Nursing homes and hospitals are so understaffed. Patients who can't go to the bathroom by themselves have to wait a long time to be taken to the bathroom by a CNA because the CNA has so many patients who all need care at the same time. Imagine the discomfort of not being able to go to the bathroom when you need to.
CNAs have a very tough job. They get little pay and little respect. If someone is working as a CNA, it's most likely that they put up with having such a terrible job because they actually care about helping people. Yet we drive these caring people out of the field because of the poor working conditions.
People talk about the placebo effect as if it's just about stupidity or something, that it's just wrong for patients to get better when given a pill that has not actual pharmacological effects. I think that many people miss the important lesson of the placebo effect. What the placebo effect tells us is that just having someone pay attention to you and care for you has a healing effect. The way our health care system is set up, so that health care professionals have to deal with many more patients than they have time for, is detrimental to healing. If doctors, nurses, CNAs, and others could really take the time to attend to the needs of patients, I think patients would be healthier and perhaps the needs for medications and surgeries would even decrease.
I went to a naturopathic doctor the other day. She explained that they study the things MD's study, but they also study things like homeopathy, clinical nutrition, etc. That seemed to make so much more sense to me. Doctors should not be limited to prescription drugs as the only tool for healing, when other remedies also exist. Doctors should be people who heal, by whatever means works, not people whose job is to write prescriptions.
It's easy to see that our health care system leaves a lot to be desired. I can find that out just by dialing my doctor's phone number and not being able to get through. The hard part is figuring out how to fix it. I don't like to hear people complaining about what morons the politicians are for not fixing health care. It's a difficult, complex problem which is not easily solved.
I think one of the difficulties has to do with the fact that we live in a capitalist system, and yet we believe that there are certain things, such as education and health care, which should be open to all. Wealthy people can get better health care. The problem is how to make health care available to all while at the same time funding it in such a way that high quality can be maintained.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Selective memory
I heard someone say, "Students aren't as smart now as they were five years ago." Someone else replied, "I've been hearing people say that since 1850. People just remember the smart students from before because they stood out, and they forget about the ones who weren't as good."
In another conversation, someone remarked that whether talking to his superiors at work or going home to tell his wife about what is going on at work, he tends to talk about the problems. Saying that people usually like to talk about bad news, he mentioned that when he was watching the news on a local TV station a few days before, they were trying to counter this trend by including positive events in their news coverage. Someone asked him what story they had covered the night he watched it, and he said, "I forgot." His forgetting demonstrated why good news is not covered so much: it doesn't attract attention.
People often talk about how things were better in the good old days.
It seems that in looking at the past, we mostly see the positives, but when looking at the present, we mostly see negatives.
In another conversation, someone remarked that whether talking to his superiors at work or going home to tell his wife about what is going on at work, he tends to talk about the problems. Saying that people usually like to talk about bad news, he mentioned that when he was watching the news on a local TV station a few days before, they were trying to counter this trend by including positive events in their news coverage. Someone asked him what story they had covered the night he watched it, and he said, "I forgot." His forgetting demonstrated why good news is not covered so much: it doesn't attract attention.
People often talk about how things were better in the good old days.
It seems that in looking at the past, we mostly see the positives, but when looking at the present, we mostly see negatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
