I guess I was still at The Canyon News when I first heard about college English departments having to develop what they called "bonehead English" courses because high-school grads weren't up to the task of mastering regular old freshman English.
Then I heard somewhere about the development of similar math courses for the same reason.
That must have been in the late 1970s.
Here we are 40 years later and absolutely no smarter about how to educate children.
In fact, we seem to be doing more things wrong when it comes to getting kids up to speed.
And we keep kidding ourselves by massaging various numbers that are supposed to tell us how we're doing.
Want to measure success on test scores? Fine: some teachers will just lie about the scores one way or another.
Want to measure success by graduation rates? Fine: just about everyone fix those numbers, too.
The New York Times reported yesterday that more kids are graduating than ever, but they can't do college work.
And that means they probably can't do real work in the world outside our educational institutions.
Still, we blather on about accountability, while nobody gets held accountable.
When I was growing up, I believe principals held teachers accountable, and superintendents held principals accountable, and superintendents wanted to be in the business of educating kids, not polishing their resumes for the next move up the ladder.
Maybe that's just too simple a way to look at it.
The rate of creation of new magazines in the United States is slowing. MediaFinder.com, a database of North American publications, found that 113 magazines were launched this year compared to nearly 200 in 2014.
Fewer closed, though. Nearly 100 shut their doors in 2014, but only 35 went out of business in 2015.
It's really hard to imagine that there is a niche market out there that doesn't have its own publication already -- and for a long, long time.
How many magazines about running or biking or hiking or travel or doll-making or baking or -- well, just name an activity -- can there possibly be?
I would certainly guess that growth is rapidly occuring in online publications, but I don't have numbers on that.
In the world of paper and print, I'm just surprised.
Although I guess I shouldn't be. After all, we get hundreds of new books on niche subjects every single year, over and over and over again. How may books do you need on running or biking or hiking or travel or doll-making or baking? There'll never be too many, apparently.
Starting today you can respond to a survey about our library and the services we offer and might offer by going online.
We have partnered with Texas State University's sociology department to see what the community thinks about the library.
Dr. Joe Kotarba and students put the poll together, and they will tally the results, which we will receive after the first of the year.
We hope to get as much good feedback as possible. Libraries across the country, ours included, are facing new challenges in this age of information overload. So, it's important that we spend your money wisely and give you what you want outside the usual library box.
Please take a moment to fill out the form by going to:
Ever since Kindles and Nooks came on the market, well-meaning children of senior adults have thought it would be cool to give those parents Kindles or Nooks for Christmas.
The result has been, for too many of the seniors, not cool at all.
Kindles and Nooks and the like seem to be more accepted by younger readers. Research bears that out. CBS News ran a story the other day on its website by Amy Kraft just on this issue. Younger people will readily adapt to electronic readers. Older folks not so much.
But, also keep in mind as you put a list together for younger readers: studies show they retain what they've read better if they read print, not pixels.
I had a long coversation this past weekend with one of the country's pre-eminent historians of contemporary art about one Richard Prince and his claim to fame and riches.
Richard Prince, you see, may be the wealthiest living artist.
And every cent he has made has been off photographs of photographs, the originals of which he did not arrange or take or create in any way.
The website Priceonomics had an article about Prince that sparked my conversation with the art historian. Seems Prince has made $300 million off his "works" in the past 15 years alone -- "the vast majority of which are either 're-photographs' or adaptations of pre-existing photographs."
What Prince does is steal others' works via camera and then reposition them in galleries, pretending that he is "changing the contect and therefore the meaning of these works," as my art historian friend put it.
I say anyone who takes another's creation and calls it his own is a plagiarist and a thief. Art critics and historians may not agree with me, but they seem to be trying to sanitize something that smells so bad no substance on earth would redeem it.
Page 11 of 80