A few pieces around the internets that are worth reading:
1. At the Chronicle of Higher Education, Mark Bauerlein discusses research suggesting that the lecture format is beneficial for students compared to progressive teaching methods. As one paper notes, “Contrary to contemporary pedagogical thinking, we find that students score higher on standardized tests in the subject in which their teachers spent more time on lecture-style presentations than in the subject in which the teacher devoted more time to problem-solving activities.” (This piece is a lot better than the one by his colleague that mocks Adam Smith ties in a rather juvenile fashion).
2. A little dated, but this take down of ethanol subsidies is great. Now we need him to write one against sugar protectionism. Down with concentrated interests who gorge at the public trough!
3. And in the “Not Worth a Read” category, David Greenberg – a historian at Rutgers who should know better – writes a thin critique of “isolationists” in the New York Times today. Hasn’t this kind of simplistic “history” and inaccurate categorization of today’s critics of liberal internationalism/neoconservatism been written about a million times already? And aren’t these types of pieces really just rhetorical bullying to prevent a serious discussion of American foreign policy?