Thoughts on culture, education, and having been a Canadian in the US

I was looking for some stats on the largest cities in North America the other day (it’s easy to assume that New York is the largest city in North America, when it’s actually #2) and came across this rather stunning list of the populations of the one hundred largest cities in the world. Take a long look at that list and notice how few cities there are from Europe and North America. That really puts things into perspective about the size of the world.

I also was struck by Doug Saunders column from this past weekend’s Globe and Mail. In it, he pointed out a number of important shifts that have occurred over the last year:

From a future historian’s viewpoint, there were two huge developments that will define 2006.

China alone is undergoing the largest migration in human history. The shift is already having profound implications.

Lots to ponder from those facts alone. Aside from the huge issue of global warming, something I wrote about in an earlier post, It’s easy sitting where I am to think that the world is not changing all that much. Clearly, that’s not the case!

I’m currently part-way through another round of my winter session online course on Michael Ondaatje and was responding today to a discussion board thread in which my students were talking about some of the things they know about Canada. One student brought up the health care system and I responded as follows:

As I often tell my students, learning more about another country (and

particularly one that’s as close to home geographically, culturally, and

historically as Canada) can teach Americans a lot about their own

country as well. As D…. pointed out, I think one of the things that

should really make Americans look more critically at their own

healthcare system is the lack here of universal health care, something

that every other well-off country in the world enjoys. Universal health

care is not “free” health care at all. Canadians pay for it in taxes and

employers also pay health care premiums. However, the Canadian

government still pays less per capita than the American government and

the premiums paid by businesses per employee is about 10% of what UVM

contributes towards my insurance. As D… also rightly pointed out,

though, the Canadian system is also far from perfect (very long wait

times for particular tests, specialists etc). Knowing about how another

system works, though, is crucial to being able to see what works and

doesn’t work well enough in your own system. Canadians often use the

American system in that way to both argue for what we should be doing

(better access, shorter wait times etc) and shouldn’t (privatized

insurance etc).

Who knew that this would also be the subject of a couple of really interesting NY Times pieces over the last couple of days. In Paul Krugman’s editorial “A Healthy New Year” (which you might not be able to open without being a TimesSelect subscriber) he states that “The U.S. health care system is a scandal and a disgrace. [. . .] In 2005, almost 47 million Americans — including more than 8 million children — were uninsured, and many more had inadequate insurance.” Krugman goes on to bring up some of the points I always tell my students:

Some say that we can’t afford universal health care, even though every year lack of insurance plunges millions of Americans into severe financial distress and sends thousands to an early grave. But every other advanced country somehow manages to provide all its citizens with essential care. The only reason universal coverage seems hard to achieve here is the spectacular inefficiency of the U.S. health care system.

[. . .] The truth is that we can afford to cover the uninsured. What we can’t afford is to keep going without a universal health care system.

Krugman, like Anna Bernasek’s article from this past Sunday’s NY Times entitled “Health Care Problem? Check the American Psyche,” says that “If it were up to me, we’d have a Medicare-like system for everyone, paid for by a dedicated tax that for most people would be less than they or their employers currently pay in insurance premiums. This would, at a stroke, cover the uninsured, greatly reduce administrative costs and make it much easier to work on preventive care.” As Bernasek points out, the greatest obstacle to such a plan is not really the logistics of making such a drastic change but rather convincing Americans that such a system would be possible and that it would actually be to their own benefit.

Even though “the economic case for a single-payer system is surprisingly strong” and “as demonstrated in France, Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries with functioning single-payer systems, significant savings can come without hurting the overall health of the population,” the case for a single-payer system is a hard one to make here. “Most Americans just don’t believe it can be done,” Bernasek writes. “The health care crisis may turn out to be more of a problem of ideology than economics.”

Canada, interestingly enough, proves to be one of the key examples Bernasek offers as to the positive aspects of the single-payer system and to people’s aversion to this idea here, which Bernasek seems to find as hard to fathom as I do.

Consider Canada’s system. Professor Anderson points out that in the 1960s, Canada and the United States spent roughly the same per person on health care. Some three decades later, though, Canada spent half as much as America. How did Canada manage this? By controlling the use of medical equipment and hospital resources, which statistics show has helped Canadians keep a lid on costs without measurably compromising the overall health of the population.

Victor R. Fuchs, an economics professor at Stanford and a specialist in health care economics, explained it this way: “The Canadian system is a nonstarter for the U.S. even though it’s a good system for Canadians. You’re dealing with two very different countries. We were founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were founded on peace, order and good government. It’s a difference of values.”

I, frankly, don’t see how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (they sure were a great band, weren’t they?) can make the idea of giving everyone in the US access to much more affordable health care while still positively affecting the bottom line a “non-starter.” But maybe that’s just my Canadian “difference of values”…. I don’t think so.

Hmmmm… Interesting timing for this news to come out of Ottawa. A coincidence that this report just happened to come out on December 21? I think not…. Make sure to read the whole article.

OTTAWA (CP) – After months of heated denials, the federal Conservative party has quietly admitted it failed to publicly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations.

In the revised report, the Conservatives have “reclassified revenue related to the 2005 convention,” disclosing an additional $539,915 in previously unreported donations, an extra $913,710 in “other revenue,” and an additional $1.45 million in “other expenses.”

This is a cool story. I took a quick look at Don McAllister’s podcasts and they’re really impressive. Looks like a great value. I’m definitely going to check out the free version on iTunes, but don’t think anyone could go wrong paying for the extra content. I just might become a member myself.

Kids and I are in the office right now for an hour or so to give their mother a break from the considerable noise of two kids on Christmas morning (and me putting together a rather large Playmobil castle). I hope everyone is enjoying a happy holiday. We attended a great Christmas eve service at church last night and are having some friends over for dinner in a few hours. If only there were a bit of snow here. That said, being from Alberta, I’m hard pressed ever to complain about a mild winter.

Go here, and listen to Thursday’s show. I’m sure it’s now floating around all over the place, but you can find it there. Fantastic….

Just posted the following grading guidelines on my English 180 blog and thought it might interest those of you who visit this blog from time to time. The blogging assignment is new for 180 this semester and so I’m only now thinking about how to assign grades for the mostly great work the students have done. I’ve also never clearly laid out my expectations for the participation grade. So, these are first stabs at outlining my expectations for these components of the final grade. I welcome your feedback as I hope to include something like this in future course outlines.

Blog grade:

A: To earn an A on the blog component of the course all assignments must have been completed and comments posted by the assigned deadline. Comments are thoughtful, fully answer the question asked and, if specified, include responses to the comments of other students.

B: All assignments completed, mostly on time. Thoughtful comments, though perhaps briefer and less engaging than those that merit an A.

C: Most assignments completed, primarily at the end of the semester and/or comments are short, perfunctory answers to the blog prompt with little consideration of the comments of others.

D: Only partial completion of the assignments and comments show little commitment to making a contribution to the discussion.

F: Failure to complete more than 50% of the assigned blog questions.

Participation grade:

A: Nearly 100% attendance, unless due to illness or family emergency AND active participation in class. Clearly on top of the reading and regularly speaks in class. Always engaged in the discussion, whether vocally contributing or not.

B: Missed very few classes (2 or 3 max), unless due to illness or family emergency. Participated in class vocally on a fairly regular basis, but, more importantly, is always listening and attentive to the ongoing discussion. Unprepared for class occasionally, but usually caught up on the reading and willing to contribute.

C: Misses more than three classes for reasons other than illness or family emergency. Clearly behind in the reading on at least several occasions. Mostly attentive and speaks in class several times over the course of the semester. Makes a good effort to stay involved in class discussion and appears interested.

D: Regularly missing from class and/or frequently appears disinterested. Routinely behind on reading and fails to bring books to class. Leaves class from time to time to take phone calls thinking that the professor thinks they are using the bathroom, continually passes notes back and forth with someone else, works on other homework, reads the newspaper during class, checks e-mail or text messages while instructor or classmates are speaking, all of which, I should add, are apparent to the instructor and your classmates and immediately qualify you for a D. (Wow, that felt good to make a list of all my pet peeves. Fortunately, this only applies to very few people this semester.)

F: Unable to earn even a D in participation….

Watch this! Talk about a brave kid, er, red Power Ranger. If only I had a suit like that and could scare away the piles of essays currently holding me hostage….

Thanks to Heidi for the tip.

I was happy to notice a few minutes ago that the comments on my English 180 blog have surpassed the 700 mark, with close to half of these coming this semester. I’ll be the first to point out that I require that my students respond to the prompts and comment on each other’s prompt, but I think that the level of “discussion” that has gone on there has helped my students get a better handle on the novels we’ve looked at this semester. I’ve been really impressed with many of the observations they’ve made there.

Looking at how much I’ve posted in the last couple of years, since I began blogging here at UVM, the total combined number of posts I’ve made currently sits at 463. That’s not bad, at all, though I’d like it to be higher. Then again, I’d also like to be publishing more, so maybe I should be regretting it wasn’t lower.

Regardless, I’m enthused to see such great work on the part of my students. I also highly recommend that you check out the great blogging work my English 005 (Canadian Culture) students did this semester with their group blogs. They really impressed me and are all now bloggers, at least for the time being.

I wonder if we’ll see a “Great White North” alumni blog appear? HINT HINT, you intrepid English 005 bloggers…

Every year on December 6, I mark the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre by taking a moment of silence in class after reading the names of the murdered women. Talking to my students, the vast majority of whom have never heard of the events of seventeen years ago even though it happened only about 90 minutes from here, I cannot help but compare their lives with those of the women murdered at the École Polytechnique.

People across Canada today, and especially on university and college campuses, will be marking this anniversary with speeches, candlelight vigils, and moments of silence. I hope we can all find some time in our classes, homes, or offices to remember the following young women who lost their lives seventeen years ago today.



Victims of the Montreal Massacre at l’École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989

Geneviève Bergeron

Hélène Colgan

Nathalie Croteau

Barbara Daigneault

Anne-Marie Edward

Maud Haviernick

Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz

Maryse Laganière

Maryse Leclair

Anne-Marie Lemay

Sonia Pelletier

Michèle Richard

Annie St-Arneault

Annie Turcotte

In Canada, December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada. Established in 1991 by the Parliament of Canada, this day coincides with the sad anniversary of the death of fourteen young women who were tragically killed on December 6, 1989 at l’École Polytechnique in Montréal because of their gender.