1C Agenda 5-24-18: Final Exam for Blue Book and "War on Stupid People" by David Freedman and New Capstone Essay Option

One. Check homework #21: write a 3-paragraph, 350-word essay that analyzes the causes behind America’s tendency to confuse human intelligence with human worth. Use at least 3 signal phrases to cite Freedman’s essay.

Two. Remaining Schedule

May 29 Peer Edit Essay #5

May 31 Essay #5 Due; We will work on Blue Book Final Exam: "Unfollow" by Adrian Chen and The Backfire Effect

Final Exam Essay Prompt for Blue Book

Blue Book Exam done in two parts for Week 16, June 5 and June 7: In a 4- or 5-paragraph essay, develop a thesis that explains how Megan Phelps-Roper overcame the "The Backfire Effect" and freed herself from the family religious cult that raised her. To develop this thesis you must read the essay “Unfollow” by Adrian Chen and “The Backfire Effect” from The Oatmeal.

You can turn in the Blue Book on June 5 or June 7. You can bring notes and rough draft of Blue Book to class.

June 5: Final Exam with Blue Book

June 7 Homework Portfolio 2 Grade Check.

"Debate on Student Loan Debt Doesn't Go Far Enough"

"Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt a Good Idea?"

"Forgive Student Loans? Worst Idea Ever"

Three. Added an Essay Option to Capstone List

Essay #5, Your Capstone Essay worth 225 points Due May 31

You must have 3 sources for your MLA Works Cited.

Option One. In the context of the Netflix documentary Dirty Money, Episode #2, "Payday," write an argumentative essay that answers the question: Were Scott Tucker and his associates fairly prosecuted or did the government overreach its powers and exact unjust punishment on these allegedly greedy businessmen? Be sure to have a counterargument section. For your required 3 sources, you can use the documentary, the Vulture review, and the Atlantic review.

Option Two. In the context of the Netflix documentary Dirty Money, Episode #1, "Hard Nox," support, refute, or complicate the assertion that in spite of Volkswagen's 30 billion dollars paid in fines and legal fees for committing fraud and other crimes, that their ascent in the world economy is evidence that Volkswagen, as an agency of unbridled corporate greed, has triumphed over the wheels of justice. You must have a counterargument section. For your required 3 sources, you can use the documentary, the Vulture review, and the Atlantic review.

Option Three. In the context of the essays in Chapter 10, defend, refute, or complicate the assertion that young people should be required to perform public service.

Option Four. Defend, refute, or complicate Martin Luther King’s justification of civil disobedience in his essay “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (309)

Option Five. In the context of the online essay “Anti-Vaxxers: Enjoying the Privilege of Putting Everyone at Risk” by Jeb Lund, support, defend, or complicate the assertion that the vaccination crisis results largely from the hubris of white privilege. You can refer to the John Oliver video on vaccinations.

Option Six. In the context of “The War on Stupid People” by David H. Freedman, support, refute, or complicate the notion that society places misplaced admiration for intelligent people.

Option Seven. Support, defend, or refute the notion that college debt should be forgiven. See "Debate on Student Loan Debt doesn't Go Far Enough" (222) and "Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt a Good Idea? (225). Also see "Forgive Student Loans? Worst Idea Ever" (227).

Option Eight. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that college should be free.

For context, see Chapter 11 in your book. Also consult the following:

Forgiving All Student Loan Debt Would be an Awful, Regressive Idea The Problem with Public Colleges Going Tuition-Free

Option Nine. Watch first 2 episodes of Netflix’s Ugly Delicious and write an argumentative thesis that addresses how David Chang in his quest for the ultimate pizza and ultimate taco explores the logical fallacies that fuel the mythology of authenticity based on absolutes, food dogmatism, narrow-minded traditionalists and ethnic purity vs. the authenticity based on an independent search for quality and the acknowledgment that “authentic” dishes are not pure at all, but cobbled together over time by diverse sources. (As a personal aside, writing this assignment overwhelmed me with an unforgiving craving for pizza, which resulted in me texting the babysitter so my wife and me can have Italian food at a nearby award-winning restaurant.)

Ubiquity of Intelligence Tests:

Intelligence Tests Are Biased, But They're Not Going Away

IQ tests are biased on many levels.

IQ tests cater to the educated and the privileged.

But regardless of their faults, IQ tests and similar tests will become more and more pervasive as the technology advances to the point that DNA testing will be used. Some say we won't even need to put pen to paper to test our intelligence. A $50 hereditary IQ test may soon be available.

People perform better on IQ tests when they are moved from stressful, economically-challenged background to more privileged background; when they are given monetary reward for doing better on the test; when they are allowed to take the test during a smarter period of their lives; and other factors.

Regardless of the imperfections of tests, there is still an Intelligence Distribution with a small percentage on top, a large percentage in the middle, and a small percentage at the bottom.

Society is obsessed with identifying the small group at the top. Success is largely built on proving that one is part of that elite group. Privileged parents will use all the resources at their disposal to give their children a fighting chance of being labeled as being part of the Super Group.

We can object to the Fight to be on Top and the unfair advantages bestowed on the privileged, but the system, as rigged as it is, is not going away.

We can object to the "ruthless Darwinian instincts" that drive us to create a brutal social and economic hierarchy, but that is the state of affairs, the status quo.

David Freedman, the author of "The War on Stupid People," makes the claim that our favoritism toward the smart and our bias against the less smart may not only be unfair but dangerous to everyone in society.

"The War on Stupid People"

One. Up to the 1950s, the zeitgeist accommodated friendly mediocrity as long as people were decent, had a hard-working, honest character and groomed themselves, they'd be okay.

Two. Then the connection of science and intelligence tests become popular and an ubiquitous part of American values. As a nation, we became obsessed with IQ. We became obsessed with separating out the dumb from the smart. As a result, our default setting was to scorn and denigrate "S people."

Three. Disdain for the Stupid permeated entertainment, which freely mocked the dumb. In a world of political correctness, the dumb remained a free and easy punching bag. There is a popular YouTube Channel that features a dumb neighbor. People gawk at this dumb neighbor all day long. In the entertainment world, Dumb = Funny.

Four. Yet, being sub par in intelligence is no laughing matter. The Below Average are America's majority. Worse, 80 million Americans have IQ scores of 90 or below.

Five. Having a low IQ is associated with a myriad of ailments: early death, mental illness, violence, to name a few.

Six. Currently, our culture pushes high IQ. For example, the job website Monster emphasizes jobs with lots of intelligence testing. The more tests the better.

Seven. A culture that fetishizes intelligence or commits unbridled idolatry of intelligence over morality and ethics inches toward the Cult of the Selfish Individual championed by Ayn Rand, who many say perverted the idea of Nietzsch's Ubermensch (Superman) to justify the idea that the smart creative and productive people of society should let the "dead weight" of society, the poor and the dumb, die off as a natural part of Darwinian selection.

The Individual Genius, according to Ayn Rand, must forsake the poor and the "lesser minds" of the human race in order that human affairs ascend without being chained to the mediocrity of "lesser people."

This philosophy is at odds with Christian mercy, which has people of faith going into hopeless places all over the world to bring care, aid, and compassion.

For Ayn Rand and her ilk, such compassion is a perversion and will only increase the population of the herd.

The Ayn Rand Cult, known as Objectivism, is described by a former cult member.

Eight. Being smart doesn't equal an ideal worker. Super smart employees can be lousy, difficult, narcissistic, resistant to criticism, lacking in self-awareness, lacking in interpersonal skills, and so on.

Nine. Blind veneration of intelligence has killed many non-college work, creating a deep unemployment crisis.

Ten. "Fetishization of IQ" makes smarts a premium for romance, dating, love, marriage.

Eleven. The Cult of the Intellect creates more and more Have-Nots.

Twelve. Poverty lowers IQ significantly. See Princeton study.

Thirteen. "We must stop glorifying intelligence and treating our society as a playground for the smart minority."

Fourteen. We need to address the needs of the majority.

Fifteen. Currently, the status quo is a silent, implicit nod to Ayn Rand's Cult of the Superior Individual and a rejection of compassion for all based on the faith of the world's major religions.

Option Six. In the context of “The War on Stupid People” by David H. Freedman, support, refute, or complicate the notion that society places misplaced admiration for intelligent people.

Is War on "S People" Justified?

Freedman posits the question: Should our society do more to accommodate average and sub-average intelligent people who comprise the majority of Americans? Or should we say, in concert with today's status quo: "Tough luck, Average and "S" People. Darwinian evolution compels us to leave you behind because the human race is stronger when we prioritize resources and privileges for the Smartest and let the Less Smart die on the vine."

Loving and making provisions for the less fortunate is usually considered a Christian ideal and a value held by most mainstream religions. But most industrial societies have veered away from that ideal. There is a school of thought, often associated with the German philosopher Nietzsche and American self-promoter Ayn Rand, both considered anti-religious, who argue that the human race becomes better when it abandons the less fortunate--the Less Smart in this case--in order to let the Super Smart "spread their wings and fly."

Sample Thesis Statements

David Freedman makes a compelling case that we have made a fetish of intelligence to our own detriment.

Freedman makes the compelling case that our unbridled veneration of high intelligence has blinded us to many societal dangers, which include _______________, ________________, ________________, and __________________.

To accommodate the Super Smart in the name of promoting radical individualism as championed by Nietzsche and Ayn Rand is to go down a dangerous road of heartless Darwinism, which will disrupt civilization as we know it.

While there are some societal dangers from failing to accommodate Average and "S" People, it would even be more dangerous to violate our current status quo, which prioritizes privileges for the Super Smart because ______________, __________________, ________________, and ____________________.

Student Loan Debate

We are becoming an oligarchy argument: "Debate on Student Loan Debt Doesn't Go Far Enough"

"Is Forgiving Student Loan Debt a Good Idea?"

"Forgive Student Loans? Worst Idea Ever"

Arguments You Need to Address

Pros for Forgiving Student Loans:

One. There can be new forgiving loan programs tied to public service job incentives.

Two. We need to forgive debt to prevent middle class income stagnation.

Three. Forgiving student debt is an economic stimulus.

Four. We will spend the same amount as we did to bail out Americans during the 2008 Recession.

Five. College students have a horrible cost-benefit equation: College is more expensive and good jobs are in a state of scarcity.

Six. We now live in a "borrow to work" society, a world your professor did not live in when he went to college.

Cons for Forgiving Student Loans:

One. Most students in debt can afford to pay the money back. Only 1% owe more than 100K. The average debt is 35K.

Two. The government already has an Income Based Repayment Program.

Three. Why make non-college taxpayers pay for college students to go to college?

Four. The largest beneficiary of loan forgiveness will be the middle class. Should poor people subsidize middle class college tuition?

Five. Bottom one-fourth of economic tier get only 7% of all college degrees. So we're funding people who are already in the middle to upper tiers.

Six. Forty percent of college students do not get a college degree in 6 years. Is this a good way for taxpayers to spend their money?

Seven. Forgiving student loans will cause tuition inflation.

Excerpt

So we asked Freakonomics contributor Justin Wolfers what he thought of the idea. His response is as follows:

Let’s look at this through five separate lenses:

Distribution: If we are going to give money away, why on earth would we give it to college grads? This is the one group who we know typically have high incomes, and who have enjoyed income growth over the past four decades. The group who has been hurt over the past few decades is high school dropouts.
Macroeconomics: This is the worst macro policy I’ve ever heard of. If you want stimulus, you get more bang-for-your-buck if you give extra dollars to folks who are most likely to spend each dollar. Imagine what would happen if you forgave $50,000 in debt. How much of that would get spent in the next month or year? Probably just a couple of grand (if that). Much of it would go into the bank. But give $1,000 to each of 50 poor people, and nearly all of it will get spent, yielding a larger stimulus. Moreover, it’s not likely that college grads are the ones who are liquidity-constrained. Most of ‘em could spend more if they wanted to; after all, they are the folks who could get a credit card or a car loan fairly easily. It’s the hand-to-mouth consumers—those who can’t get easy access to credit—who are most likely to raise their spending if they get the extra dollars.
Education Policy: Perhaps folks think that forgiving educational loans will lead more people to get an education. No, it won’t. This is a proposal to forgive the debt of folks who already have an education. Want to increase access to education? Make loans more widely available, or subsidize those who are yet to choose whether to go to school. But this proposal is just a lump-sum transfer that won’t increase education attainment. So why transfer to these folks?
Political Economy: This is a bunch of kids who don’t want to pay their loans back. And worse: Do this once, and what will happen in the next recession? More lobbying for free money, rather than doing something socially constructive. Moreover, if these guys succeed, others will try, too. And we’ll just get more spending in the least socially productive part of our economy—the lobbying industry.
Politics: Notice the political rhetoric? Give free money to us, rather than “corporations, millionaires and billionaires.” Opportunity cost is one of the key principles of economics. And that principle says to compare your choice with the next best alternative. Instead, they’re comparing it with the worst alternative. So my question for the proponents: Why give money to college grads rather than the 15% of the population in poverty?