By Artur Davis, on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET  It is not news that affluent families extend their advantage of wealth and connections to the next generation in ways more tangible than trust funds: their kids invariably compile better grades and test scores, accomplish more in extracurricular and leadership activities, and win admission to better ranked colleges with the best rates of placing their alumni in well paying jobs.
A recent essay in the New York Times by a Stanford academic, Sean Reardon, (“No Rich Child Left Behind”) has won a lot of praise for its dissection of those trends and its collection of data showing that the gap between children born in affluent homes and their middle and lower income peers is growing. But Reardon’s analysis is also worth examining for a blind spot it reveals in the left’s critique of educational inequality: despite a laundry list of mostly proposals to grow government services, Reardon never mentions two words, vouchers and parental choice. Not even in passing, not even for the purpose of debunking them. It’s as if Reardon is wholly oblivious to the idea that what plagues many parents is not so much an absence of more social welfare, but a lack of capital to buy mobility into better educational options for their children.
And while Reardon captures the extent to which affluent parents are gaining an edge for their kids by pouring cash into extracurricular programs and by devoting more of their own time and knowledge to their child’s life after school hours, he oddly gives no consideration to the most vital thumb these parents place on the scale: they cut the check necessary to enroll their child in the most elite private school they can find, or they buy a home in a neighborhood with a track record of sustaining top flight schools.
 Reardon is perceptive in his suggestion that fixating on school quality can shortchange other decisive factors like parental involvement. But that insight does not challenge the obvious: parental support can still be undermined by weak or poorly run schools, and what the most engaged parents bring to the table can be augmented by schools that are exemplary. For those reasons, liberals and conservatives have spent a lot of energy attacking the problem of failing schools, with the right tending to focus on more accountability from teachers and principals, and the left embracing challenges to state funding formulas that disadvantage low income districts in various ways, typically by leaving them too dependent on inadequate local property tax bases.
To be sure, conservatives have sometimes been guilty of seeming more enthusiastic about reining in teachers unions than they are about the plight of under-served minority and low income youngsters. But most left-leaning critics are guilty of a blatant contradiction: they spend enormous energy worrying about the deficit between richer and poorer school districts while seeming unengaged in the even more prevalent reality that richer parents have a considerable edge in maneuvering the menu of school options.
Read the rest of…
Artur Davis: Education and the Power of Choice
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET  The column below is an irresistible one—even for me (at age 49) and not looking for either a college major or a job.
They are interesting reading and worth glancing at for information. Bu…t not, in my opinion, for life guidance.
The only thing worse you can do than pursue a degree you are interested in that pays a low starting salary is get a degree you aren’t interested in because it pays a high salary. If you do the former, at a minimum you will almost surely do much better while in college or graduate school (higher GPA), which translates into more professional options, better educated, and more self-confidence. Not a bad outcome.
 If you do the latter, you will likely do poorly, have a negative experience with school, have a lackluster record, get a second or third tier job in the field of study and not enjoy or excel at it. Pretty lousy outcome.
I’m not saying don’t balance the practical aspects of the connection between college degree and future jobs. You should and must. But make it only a part of your analysis. And at the end of your analysis, go with your gut and your passion.
No one has yet been able to quantify either. But being engaged something you are interested in and passionate about seems the common denominator of almost every person I know who excels in their field.
Even if they majored in English. (And many did!)
From Forbes:
The Best And Worst Master’s Degrees For Jobs
Thousands of new college grads will enter the workforce this year, but with unemployment at 8.2% and underemployment near 18%, many will put off the taxing job search process and opt out of the weak job market to pursue graduate degrees.
With this in mind, Forbes set out to determine which master’s degrees would provide the best long-term opportunities, based on salary and employment outlook. To find the mid-career median pay for 35 popular degrees, we turned to Payscale.com, which lets users compare their salaries with those of other people in similar jobs by culling real-time salary data from its 35 million profiles. We then looked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ employment projection data to see how fast employment was expected to increase between 2010 and 2020 in popular jobs held by people with each degree. Finally we averaged each degree’s pay rank and estimated growth rank to find the best and worst master’s degrees for jobs.
As it turns out, although there are too few doctors in the U.S. and too few seats in medical schools, those shortages are good for one segment of the population: people who get degrees as physician assistants.
Click here to read the full article.
By Jeff Smith, on Fri Feb 1, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET  Q: I’m a veteran lobbyist in a midsize state. I have a client I’ve represented for six years. Decent client, pays fine, nothing to write home about. Now a large firm that is typically on the other side of things wants to hire me away—for twice the money. What should I do?
—Initials and Location Withheld
Good question. Depends on your financial circumstances and the value you place on your professional reputation, loyalty and your principles—assuming you have them. Let’s go one at a time:
1) Do you need the money badly? Is your practice struggling? Do you have a family to support? Start at 0 and add 1 point for each “yes.”
2) How important to you is the respect of your peers?
“Very” = subtract 2
“Somewhat” = subtract 1
“Not very important” = 0
3) Do you think loyalty is an extremely important trait, a somewhat important trait or a not very important trait in a lobbyist?
“Very” = subtract 2
“Somewhat” = subtract 1
“Not very important” = 0
4) Do you think it’s very important, somewhat important or unimportant to agree with your clients’ view?
“Very” = subtract 2
“Somewhat” = subtract 1
“Unimportant” = Do Not Pass Go: Proceed directly to “Free Parking” in the office of your new client.
Tally your points. If you have a positive number, take the new client and drop the old one. If you have a negative number, stand pat. If you’re at 0, flip a coin.
While we’re on the subject, a Missouri lobbyist named Brian Grace just issued a challenge to his corridor colleagues: Take on one nonprofit group pro bono as a client. Should you decide to switch teams, I recommend that as a way to ease your conscience.
Q: Okay, I know you usually do questions from politicians, but how about politicians’ spouses? Here’s my question: My husband just got elected to the state Legislature. I’ve heard it’s a cesspool up there. And I’ve already caught him checking out one of his interns as she was walking away from him. Let me be honest: I love him, but he’s not a great-looking guy and so I probably shouldn’t worry. Or should I?
—E.B., Location Withheld
Yes, you should worry. He’s got three strikes against him already: 1) He’s got enough of an ego to seek office, which suggests that he probably enjoys attention; 2) You caught him ogling his intern; and 3) He’s not very good-looking. You’ve misinterpreted No. 3. You think that because of his homeliness, he won’t be able to attract women up there? I can promise you, it won’t matter. Handsome pols/athletes/movie stars are probably less likely to cheat—they’ve had a lifetime of opportunities for romance. For those who are less attractive, the initial brush with fame may be their first chance for significant romantic opportunities, and thus more difficult to resist.
Kissinger noted that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. He was referring to the presidency, not the power of a minority party freshman rep in the Wyoming Legislature. But to a 20-year-old sophomore at Casper College, that could be a distinction without a difference. Remember, when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Whoops, sorry, bad pun.
Read the rest of…
Jeff Smith: Do As I Say — A Political Advice Column
By Jonathan Miller, on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:30 PM ET 
Sign up for The RP’s KY Political Brief – a FREE email wrap-up of the day’s Kentucky political news, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning:
PLEASE NOTE: Signup is a 2 step process: After completing the signup form above, check your inbox (or Spam folder) for a confirmation e-mail. Click the link in that e-mail to confirm your sign-up.
===
I’m very excited to announce The Recovering Politician’s latest service to our loyal RP Nation: The RP’s KY Political Brief — a FREE email delivered every weekday morning, straight to your in-box, that will provide you with a complete wrap-up of the latest political news and notes from the Bluegrass State.
You won’t have to be a Frankfort statehouse junkie to appreciate this free service — The RP’s KY Political Brief will provide you with a one-stop shop for all of the latest news, commentary and analysis about what could be the hottest 2014 campaign in the country: the re-election attempt by U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — who might face the challenge of his career from actress/activist/UK superfan Ashley Judd. And The RP’s KY Political Brief will be your best place to find all of the latest stories about Tea Party favorite (and potential 2016 presidential candidate) Rand Paul.
Best yet, we offer this service with no political biases; much as in the No Labels style of The Recovering Politician, we will provide links to the state’s and nation’s best journalists, as well as opinion pieces by writers from all over the political spectrum.
Your tour director will be a rising star of Kentucky journalism: Bradford Queen. The 24-year-old wunderkind served for several years as assistant to Bill Bryant, one of Kentucky’s preeminent political journalists and host of the long-running “Kentucky Newsmakers” interview series. Bradford served as producer and researcher while coordinating interviews with many of the state’s most prominent leaders.
Bradford will be up every weekday morning at the crack of dawn to compile the latest and best news about Kentucky politics.
Want to try it out?
Click here to read the debut entry of The RP’s KY Political Brief.
And if you’d like to have this service delivered to your email inbox every weekday morning FOR FREE, simply sign up at the top or here below:
The Recovering Politician will not sell, trade, or rent your personal identification information to others. We may share generic aggregated demographic information not linked to any personal identification information regarding visitors and users with our business partners, trusted affiliates and advertisers.
By Erica and Matt Chua, on Mon Jan 7, 2013 at 9:15 AM ET
Writes contributing RP John Y. Brown, III:
One of the greatest sins we can commit is to have a chance to get to know extraordinary people. And then not take advantage of it. And you never know when the opportunity will present itself. So always be ready to talk. Even when you’re not sure.
A picture of a cat siting on a column led to some chuckles from my wife and daughter but then a nice lady with a very professional looking camera decided to take the same shot. I nudged my wife and daughter and said, “Told ya it was a good photo to take.”
The woman with the professional camera overheard us and, along with her husband, laughed. And that’s all I needed. Over the next 20 minutes I learned that Matt Chua worked as a VC for 6 years before he and his wife, Erica, dropped out and became professional world travelers 2 years earlier. They’ve visited and written about 30 countries, mostly about economic development but also offering a sort of young person’s Trip Adviser take on each destination. (Think of Albert Brooks’ Lost in America —but working out. And going international)
Next year Matt hopes to find himself in Stanford’s MBA program. And deserves to be there. And if that still isn’t enough to pique your curiosity, their website is titled “LivingIF.com” with the tag line, “Living to never wonder, What if.”
Now, we are pleased to have Matt and Erica Chua join us as weekly travel columnists at The Recovering Politician, with their first column, cross-posted from LivingIF.com, below. Please help me welcome them to the RP Nation, and come back every Monday at this time to read about their next extraordinary adventure!
===
Incomparable. Stunning. Choose your superlative…none will do the Everest Region justice. Nowhere else on earth is like it. Walking amongst the world’s largest mountains, admiring deep valleys and snowcapped peaks, will be one of your life’s highlights.
Here even view from the outhouses are spectacular…
Read the rest of…
Erica and Matt Chua: Hiking Mount Everest and Three Passes Unguided
By RP Nation, on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET With the recent release of the blockbuster, critically-acclaimed Lincoln, The Recovering Politician has asked Lincoln scholar, Matthew Pinsker — a professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania — to share some historical insights about our 16th President. Click here and here and here for his prior 3 pieces.
Here is the latest of his columns:
 Here is a quick breakdown of the initial reaction from historians to Spielberg’s movie:
The leading academic critics so far have been Eric Foner from Columbia and Kate Masur from Northwestern. Foner, a Pulitzer Prize-winner and one of the most respected historians in the field, claims the movie “grossly exaggerates” its main point about the stark choices confronting the president at the end of the war over abolition or peace (Letter to the Editor, New York Times, November 26, 2012). Masur also accuses the film of oversimplifying the role of blacks in abolition and dismisses the effort as “an opportunity squandered” (Op-Ed, New York Times,November 12, 2012).
Harold Holzer, co-chair of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation and author of more than 40 books, served as a consultant to the film and praises it but also observes that there is “no shortage of small historical bloopers in the movie” in a lively piece for The Daily Beast (November 22, 2012).
 Professor Matthew Pinsker Other historian / fact-checkers have been more kind. Allen Guelzo, Gettysburg College, also writing for The Daily Beast has some plot criticism, but argues that, “The pains that have been taken in the name of historical authenticity in this movie are worth hailing just on their own terms” (November 27, 2012). David Stewart, independent historical author, writing for History News Network, describes Spielberg’s work as “reasonably solid history” and tells readers of HNN, “go see it with a clear conscience” (November 20, 2012). Lincoln Biographer Ronald White also admired the film, though he noted a few mistakes and pointed out in an interview with NPR, “Is every word true? No.” (November 23, 2012).
Historical author / blogger Kevin Levin finds the whole process of historical nitpicking and response to be more than a little aggravating. Writing for The Atlantic, he complains, “Historians Need To Give Steven Spielberg A Break” (November 26, 2012). I agreed with Levin in some ways, but for the opposite reason. I argued for Quora (and Huffington Post) that people should simply stop worrying about whether any movie which necessarily invents dialogue, characters and scenes should ever be considered as “historically accurate.” It’s a work of art –historical fiction—which we need to judge by other standards (November 27, 2012). That’s also the point, Spielberg himself made at the Dedication Day ceremonies at Gettysburg (November 19, 2012) when he called his effort a “dream” and made a careful distinction between his historically inspired movie and actual works of history.
By RP Nation, on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET With the recent release of the blockbuster, critically-acclaimed Lincoln, The Recovering Politician has asked Lincoln scholar, Matthew Pinsker — a professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania — to share some historical insights about our 16th President. Click here and here for his prior 2 pieces.
Here is the latest of his columns:
This question is easy to answer as far as the movie is concerned, but much more complicated to explain in real life. The movie needs a plot device that raises dramatic tension, and so the audience is encouraged to believe through a series of scenes that passage of the Thirteenth Amendment by the House before the war’s end is absolutely essential –both to ending the conflict and for securing the final destruction of slavery. The implication builds in scene after scene that it was truly now or never for abolition by the end of January 1865.
But in reality, there is no indication that President Lincoln actually considered quick passage of the abolition amendment to be so crucial. His message to Congress in December 1864 strikes a much different tone. He wrote that “the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not” and so suggested that since there was “only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States” why “may we not agree that the sooner the better?” The confidence of that taunt (“the sooner the better”) was no accident. The National Union (Republican) Party had won a sweeping victory in the 1864 elections on a platform that explicitly called for a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. The next Congress (39th) was going to have an anti-slavery super-majority in both houses. Lincoln considered the 1864 elections to have offered an overwhelming mandate. Many northern Democrats were demoralized and there was open talk in places like Tammany Hall (the New York City Democratic Party) about the need to distance themselves from slavery. And by every reckoning, the Confederacy was on the verge of total military and political collapse.
Professor Matthew Pinsker This is not to argue that Lincoln was somehow reluctant about securing the amendment or not anxious at all about ending the war. But if Congress didn’t act on slavery at the beginning of January, it was going to do so either by special session in March or during the next regular session in December. Of course, it’s always possible that Lincoln feared any delays might jeopardize the balky Unionist/Republican coalition (represented in the film by the differences between Thaddeus Stevens / Tommy Lee Jones and his radical faction and old Francis P. Blair, Sr. / Hal Holbrook and his clique of conservatives).
Yet, practically every sign of the times suggested otherwise. For example, the movie makes much out of Lincoln’s fears regarding the Supreme Court and what they might do to his Emancipation Proclamation, but that was a concern much more relevant circa 1862 than early 1865 when leading abolitionist Salmon P. Chase was being confirmed as the new Chief Justice of the United States (replacing arch Lincoln enemy Roger Brooke Taney). I don’t think Chase’s name was even mentioned in the movie. Also left unmentioned was the fact that the Unionists / Republicans had actually packed the Supreme Court after 1863 –adding a tenth justice that helped their majority. Anti-slavery forces controlled the Supreme Court by the war’s end.
Read the rest of…
Matthew Pinsker: Why Did Lincoln Rush the 13th Amendment?
By Saul Kaplan, on Mon Dec 3, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET I am proud of my bona fides on supporting the advancement of women. It angers me to think how slow executive suites and boardrooms are to welcome more qualified females. Stubborn gender wage gaps for comparable work are unacceptable and must be closed.
However, with all of the attention and focus on supporting equal opportunities for women, we have taken our eyes off an alarming trend. Young men in the US are in trouble by any measure of educational attainment. It’s a big deal and, for reasons of political correctness, we aren’t talking enough about this growing national problem.
I refuse to believe the support of young American’s progress is a zero-sum game – that somehow if we call attention to the problem and take a different approach to improve the experience and outcomes of boys it would come at the expense of celebrating and enabling continued advancement of girls. We can and must recognize the unique challenges of young men and we had better start doing something about it now.
Read the rest of…
Saul Kaplan: Plight of Young Males
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET 
The truth about attorneys.
Lawyers aren’t always as smart as they want you to think they are.
(Email exchange today with my law firm doing a conflict check for a potential new client.)
Me: No conflict….
Partner: John, Why the ellipsis?
Me: Smart people use ellipses and I never knew why. I thought it would make me look smart if I used one during the conflict check after “No.” So, that’s why I used the ellipsis.
Partner: Nice….
By RP Nation, on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET As the new Steven Spielberg movie has reignited our national passion for our 16th President, we continue our series of posts from one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic: Dr. Matthew Pinsker, a Lincoln scholar, Civil War historian and college professor based at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA (and of course, longtime Friend of RP). For the last five years, Pinsker has personally trained more than 2,500 K-12 educators on Civil War and American history topics, and he has also been directing the House Divided Project, a digital effort designed to help classroom teachers use the latest technologies to promote deeper study of the American Civil War during its 150th anniversary.
Click here for his first column.
Here is is second, cross-posted with Quora.com, with permission of the author:
 Why do most people think of Lincoln as an anti-slavery President? Wasn’t he really more a pro-reunification president?
The best way to answer this question is to begin by defining terms. When Lincoln wrote on August 22, 1862 in his famous open letter to Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,” he was employing a word –”union”– that meant different things to different people (and still does, by the way). For Lincoln and the Republicans, the union was never merely a collection of states. Nor was it a centralized federal government or some abstract attachment to a paper Constitution.
This is the key point and what always leads to confusion. For Lincoln especially, the “union” was “the people” –as in “We the people” and what should properly be considered the fundamental and most revolutionary American doctrine of popular sovereignty.
Professor Matthew Pinsker Look carefully at all of Lincoln’s wartime speeches and statements and you will see that behind the phrase “save the union,” Lincoln always meant to protect the results of the 1860 election which he believed had defined the popular will through a legitimate electoral process. That’s how he justified calling himself a unionist even though he led a sectional party. That’s why he refused practically all compromises during the secession crisis because he believed that they failed to acknowledge how much the election mattered. And that’s why he pursued increasingly “hard war” policies against the Confederacy, including emancipation, that ultimately turned the war into what he had once warned against, “a remorseless, revolutionary struggle.”
In other words, Lincoln was both anti-slavery and pro-union. In fact, he considered those positions one and the same, because he defined “union” as the popular will which by the 1860 election results had determined that the future of the country was to be free, or, as Lincoln put it at Gettysburg, to be “a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” He was always willing to reunify the country on those terms, and never willing to consider anything less. This is, by the way, exactly the question that Steven Spielberg’s new movie, “Lincoln,” intends to examine by focusing on the last few months of the war and what the movie-makers present as the fundamental choice that Lincoln navigated during that period between pushing for a Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery or pursuing potential peace talks with Confederates.
|
The Recovering Politician Bookstore
|
