I will be offline the rest of the summer… Will resume blogging in September.

Get outside and play before your town turns into Greenwich, where lawyers and angry neighbors are threatening to close a Wiffle ball field of dreams built by local kids. “Fun? Not in my backyard!” Ugh.

“All kids [and kids at heart] deserve a Huck Finn summer.”

Play, think…
J. R. Atwood

I just returned home after a week of high-altitude livin’ in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Two great runs bookended my trip: On day one of my vacation in Jackson, I went for a light and easy morning jog to stretch my legs. Twenty minutes into my jaunt through the neighboring community of Wilson (population: 1,300; elevation: 6,100 feet), I looked up at Teton Pass, the mountain road that climbs 2,200 vertical feet at grades of up to 10 percent and cuts through the rugged range that divides the Equality State from the Gem State, and was overwhelmed with a curiosity to run to the top. (In summers past I have busted my quads riding to the summit.) A breathtaking view of the valley floor from an elevation of 8,400 feet was my reward. Incredible.

This run was just a warm-up for when I would play King of the Mountain(s) at the end of my vacation. Starting from Teton Village (elevation: 6,300 feet) at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, I darted up a trail that wraps its way to the top of Apres Vous Mountain (8,500 feet), then crossed over and trekked up to the tippity snow-capped top of Rendezvous Mountain (10,500 feet), and then descended just a wee-bit to Gondola Summit (9,000 feet). This epic trail run sometimes seemed like a Sisyphian challenge (especially the trudge up the steep, slippery, and bowl-shaped Sublette chutte), but was ultimately — because of the difficulty of the trek, the views afforded from the mountain peaks, the wildlife that I found myself surrounded by, and the quiet solitude of such an adventure  — the highlight of my trip.

Having just returned home, I want to share some noteworthy news items from the past week that I am just now having a chance to catch-up on:

** Philosophy Talk, one of my favorite local radio programs, gets some much deserved recognition, courtesy of the L.A. Times article, Yeah, these philosophy professors will give it some thought. “Thank you for thinking.”

** Gretchen Reynolds of the NYT highlights an important and oft overlooked concern about the health of endurance athletes: The sometimes obsessive weight iusses of male and female athletes:

In [a] study published earlier this year in the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 223 Swedish Olympians (125 men and 98 women) were weighed, measured and asked about their eating habits. The thinner athletes, many of them from endurance sports, reported more episodes of wild weight swings and eating disorders than other athletes. Even more startling was that the eating and weight problems were most common among the thin male athletes. The women didn’t worry about their weight nearly as much. In fact, according to Dr. Hagmar Magnus, a physician at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm and the study’s lead author, “the female Olympians ate a lot and planned meals well. The men didn’t.”

Magnus says the lessons of the study are broad. For one, “we’ve all been paying a great deal of attention to female athletes, trying to help them avoid eating disorders,” he says. “We need to start doing that for men.”

In addition, “the best female athletes in Sweden eat quite well, which suggests that good eating is a real competitive advantage,” Magnus says. “As a physician, I see many female athletes, not quite so elite, who have eating problems. That may be what has kept them from the top ranks. I’d love to get the message to them, you can eat your way to greatness.”

** Walking book clubs?! Exercise the mind and the body to maximize cognitive and bodily health, says Dr. Arthur Kramer, Professor of Psychology and the Director of the Biomedical Imaging Center at the University of Illinois, in this interview with Alvaro Fernandez of SharpBrains.

** And follow-this up with another fascinating AF/SharpBrains discussion about why and how smart people do really dumb things, like the Harvard students who paid $204 for a $20 bill. Wha?! Ori Brafman, co-author of Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, explains “the different hidden forces” and “psychological undercurrents” of our decision making processes here.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

This post is republished — and was one of the most popular articles — from a now-defunct blog I used to maintain.

It’s always a bit sad to retire a pair of running shoes, but alas, the time has come to move my Salomon XA Pro 3D trail shoes from my “running shoe” bin to my “general gym shoe” bin, also known as the place where running shoes go to die.

These shoes were my one of my first “real” pair of trail shoes, and after logging near 600+ miles in them on various dirt trails, muddy paths, and through streams in the hills of Mt. Diablo State Park, the Marin Headlands, and Jackson Hole, Wyoming, I want to offer a review of the Salomon XA Pro 3D. (So many shoe reviews on other websites and in magazines talk about the way the shoe feels out of the box or after running a dozen or so miles in them… Hopefully I can provide some further insight after exhausting the life of these shoes.)

First, the pros: Great looking shoe! To be honest, I bought it partly because of its aesthetic appeal and aggressive look. The gray on black color scheme, with multicolored label striping the tongue, reminds me of a well-polished, shiny black Dodge Viper resting quietly, but confidently, among a row of candy apple red and cobalt blue sport cars. It doesn’t need a flashy design, silly gimmick, or obnoxious color scheme to turn heads. Somehow, the understated, yet sporty designed, shoe looks fast and light just sitting in a box. It called to me. (Score one point for the marketing folks at Salomon.)

More pros: This is a light shoe that nicely hugs the foot. It wraps the heel and foot while providing enough room in the toe-box for some breathability. The firm rubber toe-stop is great for preventing stubbed-toes on gnarly root and boulder strewn singletrack.

It is a very fast shoe. I like that it rises a bit towards the back — it fits somewhere between a low-top racing flat and a high-top hiking boot, providing just enough protection and flexibility in the ankle area.

I also like the laceless, pull-tight “lacing” mechanism. I think Salomon uses some type of Kevlar type material for this and it is a neat design that provides an as-snug or as-loose fit as you want along the top of the foot. One never has to worry about a shoelace coming undone.

But one of my training buddies mentioned a potential drawback with this “laceless” system: If, for whatever reason, your lace gets stuck on a branch while running downhill at sub-5:00/mile pace, you are going down and going down hard! A regular shoelace would untie or snap, but because these laces are bulletproof and utilize a unique design system, catching a snag can bring you to an ugly and painful stop. Note, of all the miles and crazy trails I have run in these, this never happened to me. But I suppose the possibility is there.

And on a smaller note, I could not tie my car key to my shoelaces on the Salomon! Instead, I had to carry my key either in my backpack (on long treks) or in the little “key pocket” in the front of some running shorts. (I am a bit paranoid that the key will fall out or make a hole in this pockets and constantly check to make sure I did not lose it somewhere along the trail.)

Moving into the cons… There aren’t many! This was a fantastic shoe that kept me feeling fast and confident on even the most treacherous of courses. (The traction is awesome!)

But once I started upping my mileage, I began to curse the Salomon’s. Invariably, around 12-14 miles into a run, my forefeet would feel incredibly tender, soft, and bruised. The pain would be so bad that I’d find myself silently cursing and sometimes holding back a tear or two as I trudged along on a rocky course 13 miles away from my car. This is because the sole of the XA Pro is pretty soft. Its flexibility in the sole makes it light and fast, but also a poor choice for long-distance trail running. The sole is entirely too squishy.

I know the shoes are the source of this pain because I would sometimes switch shoes mid-run (after looping back to the car) and the pain would immediately subside. Other times I used different pair of shoes on the same course for its entirety without experiencing this incredibly forefoot pain.

A surprisingly large number of my friends and fellow trail runners have said they experienced similar problems with the Salomon XA Pro 3D and sent them into early running shoe retirement, opting instead to try other brands and models.

Bottom line: Would I buy another pair? Definitely maybe. (I am practicing asking my own, and refusing to answer, questions in case I ever run for President.)

These are great shoes for short-course trail running — fast and light with the perfect blend of technology and function. I have run a number of trail races, from 3 to 16 miles, and training runs up to 29 miles in my Salomon’s; I always felt confident with them on my feet. It’s just that at mile 12 or so, the foot needs something stiffer and a bit more protective.

If heading into rocky trails or runs of more than 12 miles, you might want to try something with a stiffer sole. A large number of “serious” trail runners seemed to have once tried, then moved far away from, this model, too, for whatever that’s worth.

The retail price on these shoes are north of $100, but there are many places online or at the SportsBasement in San Francisco where you can get them for around $80. For that price, maybe try a pair and hit some short trails. They make a great light-weight and incredibly comfortable hiking shoe, as well.

RIP, Salomon XA Pro 3D.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

“Oh, that is so wonderful! I wish I could do something like that. But… you know.”

“You are such a good person!”

“Those that can’t do, teach.”

“I always wanted to be a teacher. But I also want a certain amount of financial security as I raise my family and build my home.”

Public perception of public school teachers is streaked with an odd mix of admiration, pity, patronization, and guilt. Some people think that those that enter the teaching profession are missionaries or martyrs, sacrificing their own financial self-interest for the sake of others. (Some teachers are guilty of believing this, too.) And because everyone has sat at a desk in a classroom managed by a teacher in a school, a lot of us think we know what it’s like to work in education and (wrongly!) believe we know what it’s like to be a teacher.

Does the salary of a public school teacher contribute to this conception of life as a professional educator? In our society, the esteem of certain jobs is positively correlated with the earnings-potential of that profession.

Would more of the most ambitious and accomplished among us seek a career in teaching if the compensation package was competitive with the salaries offered in the fields of law, medicine, and business?

Would a higher salary attract better qualified, able, and effective teachers?

The Equity Project (TEP) Charter School in New York City thinks that the answer to these three questions is, Yes! And they are doing something about it.

Starting salary for public school teachers at TEP: $125,000 a year, with bonuses approaching another $25,000.

The TEP philosophy is based on research that reveals,”Teacher quality is the most important school-based factor in the academic success of students, particularly those from low-income families.” [Source: Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony, “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement,” ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, Urban Diversity Series No. 115, May 2003: 1]

And their premise is that you have to pay to get good people. So pay they do.

It’s a radical — even revolutionary — experiment, one that I am eager from which to learn the results.

When I look back on my own student life, it was never the content, the format, the curriculum, nor class size that determined how much I engaged with my peers and the material. It was the teacher!

Some of my most important learned lessons — some of my best “life” classes — did not take place in the classroom at all, but in conversations that unraveled over the dinner table, while watching a baseball game, on a road trip, in a dorm room, on the phone, and via email. I am fortunate to be surrounded by friends, family members, and peers who are passionate about discovering and communicating ideas. Sometimes I ask them point blank, because it would be a magical, wonderful site, if they would ever teach. Most say they would like to, used to want to, will when they retire… When the concept of money didn’t matter, when they can dream that money doesn’t matter, when money won’t matter. Then they will teach.

Or, offers The Equity Project Charter School, you can teach now. Because right now, money does matter.

To learn more about the philosophy of TEP and their teacher recruitment efforts, peruse the The Equity Project website.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

Me, eight-plus years ago and a month into my freshman year of college: “I’m majoring in philosophy.”

A college buddy of mine, majoring in business: “Uh, what can you do with a degree in philosophy?”

Me: “Well, anything, really. I read somewhere that John Elway and Jay Leno were philosophy majors.”

Buddy: “Yeah, but you stink at football and aren’t funny. [Long pause.] But hey, I bet you can fetch a premium in the marketplace because you have all these deep- and critical thinking abilities and skills.”

Me: “Yeah! Good point.”

Reality: “Uh, see the chart below of average starting salaries for college graduates, by major.”

Me: “D’oh!”

Source: The NYT’s Freakonomics blog.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

So. Much. Good. Stuff.

*** “Can We Play?,” by Dr. David Elkind and published on the SharpBrains blog, is a summary of the “research [that] confirms the value of play.” It makes for an interesting, science-rooted companion to a book that deserves a deep and thorough re-read every year, Leisure: The Basis of Culture, by Thomist philosopher and Christian theologian Josef Pieper, who makes a compelling case that purposeless activity is the most purposeful activity that we can and should engage in!

*** What is the best way to boost cognitive functioning? By exercising the body or by exercising the mind? What about the use of nutrition supplements and the practice of meditation? Jeremy at PsyBlog explores these questions in, Brain Health: Physical or Mental Exercise?, also republished on the SharpBrains blog. (If you regularly peruse only one or two sites about the brain sciences, SharpBrains is the best.)

*** Light reading: Boris Johnson, the recently-elected Mayor of London, analogizes bike riding with and without a helmet to the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” sharp elbow game of politics in Get a bike helmet to get ahead - or maybe not, an opinion piece in Britain’s Daily Telegraph.

*** To listen to: NPR’s Talk of the Nation has an audio archive of today’s discussion with Alan Schwartz of the NYT about his front-page profile of Kendall Bailey, a “6-foot-6-inch 19 year-old”  diagnosed with cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and autism, but who also happens to be one the fastest disabled swimmers in the world. Kendall is so fast that he is favored to win gold, if not set a world record in the breastroke, at this summer’s 2008 Paralympics in Beijing. That is, if he is allowed to compete. Officials of the event have been slow to confirm whether Kendall, because of his intellectual and mental handicaps, would be allowed to compete alongside physically disabled athletes. The politics of sport and the heart of a champion. Read Schwartz’s article here.

*** Another provocative read: This story about how the government of Japan is responding to its own national obesity epidemic (it seems everyone, everywhere — not just those of us in the U.S. — is getting fatter) by imposing limits to the size of its citizens’ bellies. (!) If you are a male, it is against the law for your waist to exceed 33.5 inches; for women, the government says your waist can be no bigger than 35.4 inches. If you eat too much and are too plump around the mid-section, you can be fined and forced to attend health education courses. Too much government intervention, or a necessary public policy?

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

I read an interesting little blurb by Leah Garchik in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle about the programming at the Equal Justice Society luncheon:

Neurobiologist Maninder Kahlon described how the brain works and how biology can result in the formation of biased notions. Here is your workbook today: [Click here* to] take the Stroop test. This involves forcing one’s brain to use its power of observation rather than relying on habits of perception. It’s an astounding experiment that demonstrates only a fraction of what humans are up against when they try to change preconceived notions.

*Note, the link in the above excerpt requires you to have Shockwave software downloaded on your computer to take the Stroop test. If you do not have the Shockwave plug-in, PBS’s awesome scientific program, Nova, has a “non-Shockwave demonstration of the Stroop effect” available here.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published an interesting article in today’s journal that examines the physical structure of brains in heterosexual and homosexual study participants.

The best summary of the article, PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects, authored by lead researchers Ivanka Savic and Per Linstrom of the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden, is provided by Richard Monastersky on the Chronicle of Higher Education’s News Blog:

Is There a Gay Brain? Imagine Study Finds Anatomical Clues

[Neuroscience researchers] found that the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women were more symmetrical than the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women. A similar difference emerged when the researchers looked in particular at the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions. Heterosexual women and homosexual men had more connections between their right and left amygdala and more connections with other brain regions than did homosexual women and heterosexual men.

Scientists have spent decades looking for brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people and since the early 1990s have been finding anatomical distinctions in regions associated with sexual behavior. The new study suggests broader brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual men and women, even in regions not linked to sexual attraction.

The BBC article where I first read of this study can be found here.

In 2005, Dr. Savic was the lead researcher on another neuroscientific investigation about the “gay brain.” The title of that article, also published by PNAS, is Brain response to putative phermones in homosexual men.

In this 2005 study, it was discovered — as the title of the article says — that “the brains of homosexual men respond more like those of women when reacting to a chemical derived from the male sex hormone.” [Source]

These two studies lend evidence to the debate over whether sexual orientation is a biologically-determined trait.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

The points that detractors of Teach for America raise usually fall into one of three interrelated buckets, to which I want to explore potentially effective rebuttals:

Critique #1

Teach for America belittles the profession of teaching

by treating it as a Peace Corps–style rescue mission rather than a true profession, with salaries appropriate to attracting solid candidates. “A frankly missionary program,” wrote Stanford professor Linda Darling-Hammond in an oft-cited 1994 Phi Delta Kappan article, “TFA has recruiters and advocates who have focused much of their attention on the advantaged college graduates for whom TFA serves as something useful to do on their way to their ‘real jobs’ in law, medicine, or business.” [Source]

Response to critique #1

There are two parts to this criticism of TFA. One: The low-pay of teaching “belittles” the profession. On the whole, I concur with the implied argument that teachers should be paid more. (I think teachers — from kindergarten through high school — should expect a starting salary of $80K, with opportunities to earn upwards of $150K for demonstrating exceptional teaching. But let’s not get distracted by the finances or logistics of such a proposal; we can do that another time. Today I want to look at a few of the arguments in favor and against Teach for America as an organization.)

But TFA is not responsible for the teaching salaries of its recruited teachers. They earn public school teaching salaries commensurate with the salaries of non-TFA-recruited teachers. So the salary argument has no point of entering the debate about the merits of Teach for America as an organization.

The second point concerns the outreach efforts of TFA, which detractors claim — by recruiting the best students from the most selective of colleges and by offering teaching as “something useful to do on their way to a ‘real job’” — belittles professional education.

This argument simply holds no water. For one thing, there is nothing wrong with treating — or even marketing — teaching as mission-based service. This is exactly what teaching is! It is not a job, like auditing; it is a vocation, a calling. Education is not a widget making business; it is a public good, a public service, that shapes the hearts and heads of our children. If teaching is a job, it is a job of forging relationships, shaping minds, and of empowering people to engage in deep, critical-thinking and community action. Nothing could be more of a mission-based service than teaching.

(What is belittling is the false assumption that non-profit, mission-based work only offers meager financial rewards.)

Management consulting firms like Bain, McKinsey, and BCG, along with Wall Street investment banking institutions and international hedge funds, all recruit the best and brightest minds from America’s top colleges and universities. Most of these new employees work “only” for two years in these positions before matriculating to business school or moving on to other opportunities. Some even leave these fields entirely. No one would argue that young recruits in consulting and finance related fields “belittle” these professions.

Critique 2

TFA-recruited teachers “only” commit to two years in the teaching profession. We don’t need a “short-lived import-export system; our schools require more than self-reflexive service for post-college wanderers.” [Source]

Response to critique #2

One-third of all teachers leave within two years [Source]; half of all teachers quit within five years [Source]. This data is for all public school educators! The all-too brief tenure of teaching professionals is not unique to Teach for America; teacher attrition is a national public policy concern. TFA is not an “import-export system for post-college wanderers”; the entire teaching profession is, regrettably, an import-export system for passionate educators.

At least with Teach for America, recruits commit to two full years of teaching in the most dire of all educational environments. Non-TFA teachers make no such commitment; they usually sign a one-year contract, but without the support network of the Teach for America organization, they could (and often do) leave after one academic year; some leave mid-year!

And even though the TFA service requirement is “only” two years, “two-thirds of its grads stay in the education field, sometimes as teachers, but also as principals or policy makers.” [Source]

Critique #3

TFA recruits cannot be effective classroom instructors because they “only” under-go a five-week training program the summer before their placement. “Real teachers,” on the other hand, have to do a certification program, which often takes one to two years to complete.

Five weeks of training is simply inadequate to equip recent college graduates, no matter how high-achieving and well-intentioned, with the pedagogical skills necessary to be an effective teacher, claim critics.

Response to critique #3

Data. From this month’s Primary Sources section in The Atlantic:

The Kids Are Alright

Critics of the Teach for America program, which recruits top college graduates to teach in poorly performing public schools, have long questioned whether the program’s instructors are properly prepared, citing evidence that links teacher effectiveness to experience. However, the first study to examine Teach for America at the secondary-school level, recently released by the Urban Institute, finds that its teachers are in fact more effective than those with traditional training—at all levels of experience. The study measured performance on state exams and found that students of Teach for America instructors did significantly better in all subject areas tested, and especially in math and science. The authors found that even though the program’s teachers are assigned to “the most demanding classrooms,” they’re able to compensate for their lack of experience with better academic preparation and motivation. As a result, the authors say, students are better off with Teach for America instructors “than with fully licensed in-field teachers with three or more years of experience.”

—“Making a Difference?: The Effects of Teach for America in High School,” by Zeyu Xu, Jane Hannaway, and Colin Taylor, the Urban Institute and the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research

Quick thoughts

I am a bit curious by these critiques leveled against Teach for America by certain educators. Their criticisms, while rooted in seemingly intuitive assumptions (Of course a two year teaching program is better than a five-week cram program!), also seem to be motivated, a bit or in part, by ego and insecurity. They seem to want to create/preserve the illusion that teaching is some kind of alchemy, the secrets of which are passed-down by experts in sanctioned institutions and require one to two years to truly master.

Maybe. But this is not the only way that teachers learn to be teachers. It might not even be the most effective way; it is certainly not the most efficient. It’s not even a sufficient way of teaching teachers, just as graduating from an MBA program neither promises nor precludes ambitious entrepreneurs and visionary leaders from opening their own small businesses or serving as CEO of Fortune 500 companies.

Teaching is a skill. But it is equal parts — maybe primarily — an art. The passion? The charisma? The communicative ability to be an effective educator? Can’t be taught. It’s in you… Or not.

Teach for America screens the best and the brightest minds in the country, assesses their passion and ability to teach, and has grown to become one of the largest and most successful teacher recruitment and placement organizations in the country. And they do this not by offering higher salaries, nor cushier teaching positions. No, TFA takes could-be and would-be Yale Law School students, Wall Street wunderkids, and Peace Corps volunteers and places them in the most severely depressed classrooms in the most under-resourced schools in the most fractured school districts.

And the results — better classroom performance by students; an indelible and intimate portrait of a too-often broken education system by TFA teachers — speak for themselves.

Teaching is something we should be encouraging people of all stripes, backgrounds, and experiences to explore, especially among the most successful and ambitious soon-to-be and recent college graduates. Teach for America is at the center of the village it takes to raise a child.

Related reading: “Amazing Teacher Facts,” an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

This month 3,700 recent college grads will begin Teach for America’s five-week boot camp, before heading off for two-year stints at the nation’s worst public schools. These young men and women were chosen from almost 25,000 applicants, hailing from our most selective colleges. Eleven per cent of Yale’s senior class, 9% of Harvard’s and 10% of Georgetown’s applied for a job whose salary ranges from $25,000 (in rural South Dakota) to $44,000 (in New York City).

Hang on a second.

Unions keep saying the best people won’t go into teaching unless we pay them what doctors and lawyers and CEOs make. Not only are Teach for America salaries significantly lower than what J.P. Morgan might offer, but these individuals go to some very rough classrooms. What’s going on?

It seems that Teach for America offers smart young people something even better than money – the chance to avoid the vast education bureaucracy. Participants need only pass academic muster and attend the summer training before entering a classroom. If they took the traditional route into teaching, they would have to endure years of “education” courses to be certified.

The American Federation of Teachers commonly derides Teach for America as a “band-aid.” One of its arguments is that the program only lasts two years, barely enough time, they say, to get a handle on managing a classroom. However, it turns out that two-thirds of its grads stay in the education field, sometimes as teachers, but also as principals or policy makers.

More importantly, it doesn’t matter that they are only in the classroom a short time, at least according to a recent Urban Institute study. Here’s the gist: “On average, high school students taught by TFA corps members performed significantly better on state-required end-of-course exams, especially in math and science, than peers taught by far more experienced instructors. The TFA teachers’ effect on student achievement in core classroom subjects was nearly three times the effect of teachers with three or more years of experience.”

Jane Hannaway, one of the study’s co-authors, says Teach for America participants may be more motivated than their traditional teacher peers. Second, they may receive better support during their experience. But, above all, Teach for America volunteers tend to have much better academic qualifications. They come from more competitive schools and they know more about the subjects they teach. Ms. Hannaway notes, “Students are better off being exposed to teachers with a high level of skill.”

The strong performance in math and science seems to confirm that the more specialized the knowledge, the more important it is that teachers be well versed in it. (Imagine that.) No amount of time in front of a classroom will make you understand advanced algebra better.

Teach for America was pleased, but not exactly shocked, by these results. “We have always been a data-driven organization,” says spokesman Amy Rabinowitz. “We have a selection model we’ve refined over the years.” The organization figures out which teachers have been most successful in improving student performance and then seeks applicants with similar qualities. “It’s mostly a record of high academic achievement and leadership in extracurricular activities.”

Sounds like the way the private sector hires. Don’t tell the teachers unions.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood

“My Amygdala, My Self,” by Jeffrey Goldberg, is a fun and fascinating article in this summer’s Ideas Issue of The Atlantic:

Intrigued (and alarmed) by the new science of “neuromarketing,” our correspondent peers into his own brain via an MRI machine and learns what he really thinks about Jimmy Carter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bruce Springsteen, and Eddie Falco.

Article.

Play, think…
J.R. Atwood