My Wednesday column is up (see below).

Canadian values

This is really quite stirring, in a prosaic sort of way. I'll have more to say about it in tomorrow's column...

Address by the Prime Minister To the Canadian Armed forces in Afghanistan I want to begin by telling you how proud I am of the work you’re doing. You have put yourself on the line to: Defend our national interests; Protect Canada and the world from terror; Help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country. I thank you. Canadians thank you. And I know that the Afghan people thank you. Canada’s National Interest Your work is important because it is in our national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic, and peaceful country. Before its liberation, under the Taliban regime, Afghanistan often served as an incubator for Al Qaeda and other terror organizations. This reality hit home with brutal force on 9-11, when two dozen Canadians lost their lives suddenly and senselessly in the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Those were ordinary Canadians. People with families, partners, children and dreams for a better future. Just like all of our citizens, people who died suddenly and for no reason at the hands of fanatics. Since that time, Al Qaeda has singled out Canada as one of the countries targeted for terror. And beyond the threat of terror there’s the threat of drugs. An unstable Afghanistan represents easy pickings for drug lords who would use the country as a safe haven for the production of heroin, which wreaks its own destruction on the streets of our country. Our Canada is a great place, but Canada is not an island. And what happens in places like Afghanistan threatens and affects all of us back home in our own country. Canadian Leadership Tradition Your work is about more than just defending Canada’s interest. It’s also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country. Not carping from the sidelines, but taking a stand on the big issues that matter. You can’t lead from the bleachers. I want Canada to be a leader. And I know you want to serve your country. A country that really leads, not a country that just follows. That’s what you are doing. Serving in a UN-mandated, Canadian-led security operation that is in the very best of the Canadian tradition: Providing leadership on global issues; Stepping up to the plate; Doing good when good is required. Humanitarian Mission Finally, but no less important, is the great humanitarian work you’re doing. Working with the Afghan government and Afghan people to enhance their security helps them. It helps them rebuild their country to make a better life for themselves and their children. Already a great deal has been accomplished. Reconstruction is reducing poverty; millions of people are now able to vote; women are enjoying greater rights and economic opportunities that could have been imagined under the Taliban regime; and of Afghan children who are now in school studying the same things Canadian kids are learning back home. These are important victories for the people of Afghanistan, and the represent things worth standing up for. Standing up for Canadian Values Of course, standing up for these core Canadian values may not always be easy at times. It’s never easy for the men and women on the front lines. And there may be some who want to cut and run. But cutting and running is not your way. It’s not my way. And it’s not the Canadian way. We don’t make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don’t and we won’t. Conclusion Friends, we have made real progress here. You’re work is vital to Canada. To the free world. To the Afghan people. As you get ready to go back to work, know that I am behind you. Your government is behind you. And, most importantly, the Canadian people are behind you. Thank you. God bless Canada.

Notes on the human venture capital model

My Saturday column proposes we think about funding for higher education not as grants to universities, or as aid to students, but as an investment in “human capital,” with students in the role of risky startups and the state as benevolent venture capitalist. (The basic idea is hardly original to me: I’m just exploring some ways of thinking, and talking, about it.) The model implies that we should invest those funds directly in students, rather than, as now, giving the lion’s share to universities (who are in turn restricted in the fees they can charge students). And, since students are by far the biggest beneficiaries of this investment -- the state’s interest is essentially limited to promoting equality of opportunity -- it suggests also that they should repay their investors an appropriate share of the returns accruing thereto. This is both fairer and more efficient than the present system, for reasons I explain in the piece. There are three common objections to this model. One, as in a letter that appeared in the Post, stresses the many benefits society obtains from the skills students learn in university, the point being that society should therefore pay the whole cost of their education, rather than merely staking them the money up-front. But society already pays them for their skills: that’s what a salary is for. There’s no reason to pay them twice. The problem most students face is not a lack of funds, at least in a lifetime income sense. It’s cash flow. They may have very little money to start with, just when their expenses are highest. And they may have very uncertain income for a time after graduation. Helping them through that period is an appropriate role for the state. Handing out free lunches to the children of privilege is not. The second objection notes that students in the primary and secondary school systems -- the public systems, that is -- are not expected to pay tuition fees. It’s just paid for out of general revenues. Why should we treat unversity students any different? Because everything about their situation is different. Primary students are hardly in a position to take on financial obligations, nor can they be expected to repay those incurred on their behalf. Nor, for that matter, could most parents. A university student is obliged to pay for his own education only. A parent may have many minds to feed. The time spent in university is relatively brief, and can be anticipated -- and saved for -- many years in advance. By contrast, primary and secondary schooling takes 12 years, with very little, as it were, warning. And so on. But the biggest difference is this. Primary and secondary schooling is universal and compulsory. Everyone is expected to go, the schools (public schools, that is) have to take everyone, everyone learns much the same things, and everyone is expected to get roughly the same benefit out of it. If everyone earns the same return on their investment, it hardly makes sense to go to the time and trouble of recovering it from each of them individually. It’s simpler just to pay for it out of taxes (though there are good arguments why these should be allocated individually, ie through a voucher system). By contrast, the decision to enrol at an institution of higher learning is discretionary -- on both sides of the transaction -- and one that to this day only a fraction of the population undertakes. Moreover, it is expected that some will get vastly greater benefit out of it, financial or otherwise, than others. Indeed, that’s the whole point: to nurture the brightest talents. It’s worth it to those who have the brains to pay the universities to fill them, as it will later be worth it to their employers to pay them for the skills thus obtained. It’s not worth it to those who don’t have the brains. Which raises a third objection, this time from the right: If education is an investment, and if students are the biggest beneficiaries, why involve the state at all? You wouldn’t want the state funding risky startups in the business world; why is it any different for students? For that matter, in a free market universities would find it in their interest to arrange financing for students the money to pay their tuition fees, much as car companies will lend prospective customers the money to buy their cars. Well, for some students they would. And some students would be certain enough of their prospects to take on such obligations. And some banks or venture capitalists would be willing to finance them -- some of them. The problem is the ones who get left out. We let competitive markets sort out the winners and losers when it comes to funding startup firms, because we’d rather take the risk of deserving firms going without capital than finance every firm, no matter how undeserving. With students -- human capital -- the risks are reversed. In the aggregate, the risks are predictable. But the risks associated with any one student are hard to assess. And so far as both students and potential investors might be disposed to take undue account of a student’s background, rather than their prospects, it makes sense to have the state shoulder some of the burden (mitigated not only by its ability to spread risk over very large numbers, but by its power to compel repayment). There’s also the matter of students who might be considered to have very little earning potential, but whose academic field (philosophy, English lit.) or subsequent profession (social work, the priesthood) might be thought to confer important benefits to society at large -- important enough to justify educating them at public expense, in whole or in part. Actually, the funding would still come from private investors: the program could be run by a Crown corporation, and funded by bonds issued against the aggregate earnings of each cohort of graduates. I believe they call these public-private partnerships, and for once the term is appropriate. Anyway those are my thoughts. I’m still sort of roughing this out in my own mind, but that’s what a blog is for.

I'm the son you never had

On the late great Mary Tyler Moore show (younger readers can ask their parents), the blowhard anchorman Ted Baxter was perpetually afraid to go on vacation, lest the station find his replacement more to their liking. In a memorable episode, he even went so far as to pose as his own stand-in. Now I know how he felt. I asked Andrew Potter to guest blog for me while I was away (in Whistler and Calgary -- Winnipeg was the week after, for a speaking engagement). I didn't ask him to be so consistently interesting and entertaining -- to the point that I feel a certain sheepishness about returning. Ah well, what do you want for free? Anyway, my thanks to Andrew -- I guess -- and to the rest of you for making him feel welcome, in your own inimitable style. To freshen the tank, here are some recent columns, the first two posted from hotel rooms on the road: my take on the Rothstein hearing (a start, but not nearly enough), on the Klein health care plan (a copout on real reform, going both too far and not far enough), and the Harper-Shapiro imbroglio (Shapiro may be a fool, but Harper is obliged to respect the office). Bon appétit.

his master's voice

From the real Andrew Coyne (for real, seriously):

Just heading out to Winnipeg airport on my way back to Toronto. Assuming I make it back alive (there's a snowstorm, so taking off will be fun), I guess it's about time I took back the helm of HMS AndrewCoyne.

So, that wraps it up for me. Back to the minor leagues for ap; thanks to everyone who stuck around and put up with somewhat uneven blogging from me, thanks for the criticism and the suggestions and the advice and the corrections etc. The fish seem alive, at any rate. I'll be back in my own pad at The Rebel Sell starting tomorrow. Feel free to drop by anytime, it features all the bullshit with none of the comments. You can also reach me at andrew@rebelsell.com Cheerio, ap

don't let your babies grow up to do PhDs

Since I gave up trying to find full-time academic work last year, I have had a handful of exchanges with professors around the country regarding the state of the university job market and my (lack of) place in it. Most of the advice has taken the form of well-intentioned encouragement (of the "don't give up, you'll find work if you keep plugging away" variety), which has been touching, but ultimately mis-directed. The simple fact is, trying to be an academic didn't make me happy, it made me miserable. And, slowly, it dawned on me that there are more remunerative ways of being miserable. Or at least, less miserable ways of being ill-paid. Thus, it is somewhat gratifying, in a good-fucking-god sense of "gratifying", to see this:

THE WAGES OF ACADEMIA A recent job posting at the City University of New York offered a position in teaching literature, rhetoric and composition. The instructor (not professor) had to publish and carry a full load of teaching, which includes grading papers and consulting with students after class. Candidates had to have a “doctorate from an accredited university” and “demonstrated excellence in teaching.”?The salary started at $35,031.

Another job posting offered a position that required a bit less education:?plumber. The qualified candidate had to know how to repair pipes and have five years of experience.

The salary began at $77,483.

There’s an old joke about the lawyer who had to call a plumber to fix a sink. When he saw the bill, he said, “That’s more than I charge.”?

“I know,”?the plumber says. “That’s what I said when I was a lawyer.”?

Unfortunately, in New York City in 2006, the joke isn’t so funny anymore

Even less funny, is that by Canadian standards of pay for instructors, US$35k for a full teaching load is good money. (link via the Aldaily)

Olympism's essence

Clara Hughes's challenge accepted

Right to Play, an international charity which uses sports to improve the life of children in third-world countries, has received nearly $150,000 in pledges since Hughes won a speed-skating gold at the Olympics.

Hughes took the spotlight she earned by winning the women's 5,000-metre speed skating event on the penultimate day of the Torino Games and focused it squarely on the charitable organization.

Shortly after striking gold, Hughes announced she was donating $10,000 of her own money to Right to Play and called on the rest of Canada to make a contribution.

halo, half-life, wittgenstein

I did an interview with Nora Young of the CBC yesterday, on the subject of individuality, identity, and online gaming. It is the third part of a series that Nora is doing on video games, bravely trying to introduce late-night CBC audiences to terms like “first person shooter” and “clan war.” Last week’s episode was on art and video games. It was a really fun interview to do. We talked about the prospects and perils of online existence, the future of the self, and the ethics of immersing yourself in violent environments. Nora is exceedingly smart – most of you will remember her as the original host of DNTO – and it was fun to talk philosophy, for the first time in a while. The show is on CBC radio tonight after the 10pm news. Nora and her former DNTO colleague Cathi Bond also have a podcast about the future, The Sniffer, available here.