I want to blame the College Board. But the system really run on backing by state legislatures. 37 states have passed legislation requiring their Higher Ed schools to accept AP courses for college credit, regardless of what these institutions think of these courses.

Serious question. What is to be done? To what extent do we need to theorize a movement/revolution? Daily posts of an impromptu crowd telling ice fuck off cowards. Is this not just spectacle? Content rather than anything durable? Many people posting this I know have read DeBord, Lenin, etc.

Pedagogy has to start thinking dialectically. Recognize at the outset that “student led classrooms” will require the opposite of what it seeks also. Start from there. Student led classrooms delegate learning to the structure of the activity. As Zizek points out “that’s the beauty of it.”

I would love to do this. A panel analyzing the kinds of popularized pedagogy that take root in high schools would be fascinating. Had PD yesterday aimed squarely at comprehension, with no sense that close reading is not (as Guillory argues) merely a technique or strategy of reading comprehension.

Marxism is often presented as if Marx’s main point is about theft. In this account, capitalists buy labor power and never pay the worker the full value of their labor. This fact is hidden by commodity fetishism. This is only one aspect and Marx is not overall making a moral argument about theft.

What the AI craze in education also reveals is the paucity of meaningful pedagogy and Ed Research which has honestly produced one terrible take after another and forced adoption of such terrible takes as a moral duty. The AI push is using the same playbook.

My point is more how one understands authoritarianism and how one opposes it. I am on your side but I want bio politics to enter this discussion. Trump’s actions during Covid are a good point of reference to think more deeply about what Trump’s authoritarianism entails (and what it doesn’t).

The prior claims about Trump you cite emerged because Covid was an opportunity for authoritarians to seize more power.Trump didn’t.Good analyses point out that Trump relies politically on the typical friend/enemy distinction.The approach is shared by Trump opposition and hence the skepticism

The point of the statement is that capital mediates everything. Universities, media and other institutions that claimed to have values of their own have shown the values they care about are bank statements. Claiming you’ll make less money if you cave to Trump misses the core problem.

Hypothetically, what happens if Elon reads The Phenomenology? I’m guessing, “TLDR. Replace ‘Spirit’ with ‘startup.’ X is where spirit recognizes itself.”

AI is powered by the fetish of interest bearing capital. Sam Altman sees the large sums OpenAI loses as investments with claims on future profits, just like any other interest bearing capital. But venture capital money is really social money that bankers end up in charge of.

The clearest explanation may be that perversion entails setting oneself up to harm others while hiding behind your duty to do the right thing. But this does not only describe the Right Wing. Liberal belief in purifying the act often entails a similar rejection of psychoanalytic insights.

Viewing novels as empathy machines undercuts reading novels for what they mean. This is akin to teaching close reading as a technique of reading or as practical means for a student to show the work done while reading. The reader is led away from interpretation and aesthetic judgment.

I agree with supporting immigrants and gay people. Your post seemed to present empathy as a solution to those issues. I do understand that you were making a Bluesky comment, not laying out an argument. But the notion that empathy solves material problems is so widespread that I wanted to reply.

Oh, the article is complete crap. The post just made me think of the empathy capitalists.

The whole “buy one, give one” Warby Parker, Tom’s Shoes, empathy as compatible with profit etc., “empathy capitalism” movement is weird, though. It should undergo critique more often than it does. Capitalism runs on the fetishistic idealism of interest bearing capital.

For Marx, it also reduces the general rate of profit in the long term. I feel this is an important point as there are material consequences to this. Discussing Marx also opens the door to thinking about how not everything can be achieved by brute force.

Yale Scientists apparently have no idea that synthetic judgments and analytic judgments come with significant antinomies. These scientists imagine themselves free from ideology and using a meta language. Yet declaring yourself free from ideology merely signals total ideological capture.

Sounds like buzz pedagogy words like “engagement” are a new development in college. Really, higher Ed needs to have more of an interest in what goes on in high schools. You end up with whatever simplistic but catchy buzzword high school admin put in a presentation five years ago.

What is going on with pedagogy? Where is the response from their field? I see plenty of responses that blame administrative decision makers. But these decisions argue from core (unchallenged) pedagogical claims based on “skills” or equity rather than the deeper purposes of fields of study.

It’s interesting that the Astronomer CEO has to resign over being outed for an affair. It’s indicative of how the philosophical idealism contained in the notion that money can make more money without exploitation is always masking itself as moral idealism.

Addiction is bad, unless AI makes learning how to program Python addictive. Then it’s good.

Active capital creates a general rate of profit of enterprise and this makes it seem like capitalists are locked in a game of wits to outmaneuver other capitalists. But this is not true at all. It’s just a lot more obvious than it usually is since the only skill one can point to is how to prompt AI

VC investors proceed as if Marx’s statement that capital appears to generate money “as it is the property of a pear tree to bear pears” is reality. But that is an appearance generated by the illusions of competition and the reality of a general rate of profit.

The core assumption and primary marketing strategy of Big Pedagogy is their disingenuous assertion that teachers (at every grade level) resist utilizing classroom practices that demonstrably work.

It’s amazing how the academic pedagogy researchers currently facilitating the AI rollout (among their numerous prior debunked false revolutions) completely escape discussion.

Part of the answer might the dismal state of academic pedagogy. Popular pedagogy is typically simplistic and ineffective while making grand claims to be research based and equitable. Meanwhile it fails to engage those terms in any meaningful way but enables management enforcement mechanisms.

Dude thinks books get read in two hours. Has clearly never read a book.

1994 trauma resurfacing.