Westminster Abbey and Roehampton . . .

Well. It is time for another update on the London excursions I've been taking.

First, the entire student body (from WNE) went with me on a field trip to Westminster Abbey on Friday. Everyone had a good time, entertained by our guide Tom who really knew his stuff. They did not allow pictures inside the Abbey and its chapels, but here is Tom regaling the group before we go inside:

We got there late, and I was a bit embarrassed by that, but Tom of London Walks (http://www.londonwalks.com) made us comfortable with his great stories, great humor, and engaging approach to the students.

Here are a couple of late shots as we were leaving the outer sanctum:

The third and fourth images are shots of St. Margaret's Church, the parish church of Parliament. My mother may enjoy those, being a Saint Margaret herself! The last is, of course, Big Ben (with the Millenium Wheel in the background).

And now, today, I took a trip to Roehampton. A very different kind of trip. Richmond is such a rich and privileged area. On this trip I had a chance to see the not-so-rich and to experience winter and spring together, both literally and figuratively.

First sights as I walked down Queen's Street:

Interesting mixture of blooming trees and stark skies. This mixture characterized the entire walk (5-6 miles). Down Queens street, toward Sheen, past Christ Church, into the park again, and down into Roehampton.

These images are from Sheen--still very wealthy and comfortable homes and the church.

Then into the deer park (still have not seen a single deer!). There I saw another pond that I now consider to be the "Gull Pond" south of Sheen Gate. The gulls were there, floating and hunting in full force, but they still did not scare off the ducks and swans:

Some more pics of the deer park below Sheen Gate:

Leaving on Prior Road, and walking toward Roehampton, I saw a change in the architecture and the capital of the people:

Roehampton was a darker place, with more trash on the streets, less elegant housing, and multiple security guards in the grocery store. I never felt uncomfortable, but it was a change in scenery from the privilege of Richmond proper.

The coming of Spring was still visible, but on the way home I saw both flowers and snow blowing in the air. The turning of the seasons. . .

More soon!

More English Ruminations

I have made a number of excursions since last posting here. So these pictures will be placed randomly among some general ideas I have been brooding on here.

One thing I notice here is passages and narrow walking paths that weave in and out among the city streets. They are rarely straight for very long, and may take one to unexpected places.

With names like "Whorple Way" and "Pelham Passage," these footpaths have a magical Harry Potter-like aura at times. Until you see a bunch of school kids selling drugs or cigarettes to one another, that is.

Walks around a large loop from Richmond Hill through the deer park to Sheen, then back to Richmond and up the hill again, have become a staple of my daily life. I have found post offices in Sheen and in Richmond, and grocery stores in both places, so I am a regular citizen of the place now. Here are a few photos from a loop walk. . .

Spring is coming, as evidenced by the buds and blooms along the way. It seems Spring comes earlier here than in New England. Sorry guys!

The grey heron seems to be a regular at the Duck pond near Bishop's Gate. He does not seem skittish at all about people. I still have not seen a single deer. . .

Teaching in London, Spring 2013

Rather than clog up my other blog, Expanding Minds, with material unrelated to its theme, I have decided to blog about my experiences at Richmond University, London UK here on blogspot. So here goes!

My first Saturday excursion--

After sleeping very late and having lunch at the University dining hall (Thank God for that place! I'd be broke in no time if I had to eat out several times a day!), I goofed off awhile, talked with my daughter Mariah (and was delighted by her high spirits!), then set out for Kew, home of the famous Kew Botanic Gardens. I had no plans to visit the gardens when snow was still falling, but a walk down the South bank of the Thames sounded good to me.

Along the way, I was startled by a blue heron exploding out of the foliage by the footpath, saw pigeons as big as small ducks, and saw a parakeet! That's right, a parakeet:

My colleague, Ted South, informs me that these exotic birds have invaded the Richmond Hill deer park. Apparently they live on the banks of the Thames as well!

Seagulls floated downstream along the north bank, fishing and squawking. When they felt they had floated far enough, up they'd go, flying back west and starting the loop all over again.

Whenever a fish was seized by one of them, a flurry of fighting took place among those nearby. Sometimes a larger predatory bird (a hawk of some sort) would swoop in and seize the prize for himself. Herself?

Near the South bank crew teams of 8 men or 4 women rowed upstream against the current, with one person in the stern or bow of the boat calling the strokes. Lots of boats, but I had no clear idea who the teams might represent. I did see UCL on the jerseys of a couple boats--maybe University of Central London?

When I reached Kew, I stopped for coffee (and a much needed warm-up) at a cute little pastry shop called The Original Maids of Honour. A warm, friendly place with lots of congenial people enjoying themselves. Here is what you get when you ask for a cup of coffee there:

And this is the way it looks inside:

After that, I took the Overground (yes they have one of those too) back to Richmond and walked up the hill looking for a good place to eat. I had a place in mind further up the hill, but after reading the menu for Pizzeria Rustica I decided that pizza and salad sounded great after my long walk:

I sat in the window looking out at the passersby, and had a delicious meal:

Then back up the hill home--taking a few shots along the way.

The Chuck Taylor selection was particularly impressive! Weird, huh? More soon . . .

Caring

Caring.

Why does it matter? Does it? Just watch someone do work they don’t care about, and then answer this question. When students take writing courses, they begin with the entirely wrong approach. They don’t care about reading. They don’t care about writing. They don’t care about getting better at either one. They only care about finishing, and about their final grades. That kind of caring leads to a distorted kind of work—product is the only thing that matters, and QUALITY of experience and of craftsmanship is forgotten in the hurry to generate passable material.

The first mode of being for a child is caring. Each child emerges into the world eager to experience and learn. The structure of the mind makes it so. The young child exploring its surroundings cares by definition and by necessity about those surroundings. Parents, of course, should reinforce this mode of being with their own caring, which also provides a model of how to care well.

Somehow, however, caring gets misdirected. Everyone starts to care about grades, and about money, and about outcomes, and about products, more than about the actual work of making and living and relating to others. Caring becomes distorted, misshapen. How does it happen? Part of it is the teenage rebellion against the cares of the parents. Part of it is a culture that teaches children to care about the wrong things. Part of it is an educational system that insists on objectivity and routine more than on student passion and involvement in learning. But the result is devastating. We must learn to care about each moment, each effort, each person we interact with. They are all full of possibility, and life is richer when we recognize this simple fact.

Some reflections on "Principles of Scientific Management"

Reading and commenting on Frederick Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Management (with a jaundiced eye, of course) . . .

THE principal object of management should be to secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity for each employee.

The words "maximum prosperity" are used, in their broad sense, to mean not only large dividends for the company or owner, but the development of every branch of the business to its highest state of excellence, so that the prosperity may be permanent.

The ethic of maxima is the beginning, middle, and end for Taylor in this document. And it is so broadly applied! To equate “maximum prosperity” with “development . . .to its highest state of excellence” is unreal. How does maxima equate to optima? Not at all. Especially when two different categories are being compared. “Prosperity” easily translated to “profit” in American business thinking. “Excellence” is another issue altogether. The two may be tangientially related, but to the American business mind “excellence” is always an expense—good employees, good work, slower, more deliberate work, better resources and raw materials. “Excellence” and prosperity are not directly aligned in the account book of Taylorian efficiency. But he aligns them rhetorically, of course!

Taylor then proceeds to act as a “peacemaker” between employers and employees, in this simple way: high wages and low production costs are both possible when efficiency is at its peak. In other words, the productivity per unit labor is very high. Thus, a few well-paid men are satisfied while they do the work of many low-paid men. Hmmm. He sells his position as “liberal” because he is replacing the old model in which laborers blame management for shorting them and taking all the profits and management tries to squeeze as much production out of labor at the lowest possible overhead cost. And his position sounds liberal in its moderation—everyone can “profit” if we operate with “maximum efficiency.” Problem is, “profit” is a relative term. Taylor is not much of a philosopher. To wit:
No one can be found who will deny that in the case of any single individual the greatest prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his highest state of efficiency; that is, when he is turning out his largest daily output.
This statement is, in a word, stupid. So the artist reaches his greatest prosperity when he “is turning out his largest daily output”? Or the craftsman? Or builder? Or architect? The more plans the better? Creativity and human thoughtfulness are not included in Taylor’s reasoning. And that makes it bad reasoning.

Taylor gives the example of an owner and a workman (there have to be both!) who can turn out two pairs of shoes a day in opposition to their competitors who only produce one pair per day. After selling the shoes, clearly the two-pair team “wins” in terms of profit and the opportunity for higher workman wages. Of course “selling” is part of the picture too. Maximum production does not mean maximum profits. Middle Eastern oil-producing countries could have shown Taylor some important things about supply and demand. Quality of production is important as well. Only if the shoes made are of high quality can they demand the going price for fine shoes. If they are cheapened by “maximum production,” then they are worth less and less likely to sell in a competitive market. Thus Taylor’s argument ignores the law of diminishing returns.

The assumption throughout Taylor’s piece is simple: Our only motivation to do productive work is the payment we receive. Which is interesting, since that was never the case until a money economy evolved. A trade-based economy worked on entirely different principles. And there are many motivations that lead to good work. Money is one. But so is pride in good making (or was, until the use of mass production and assembly lines took this major motivation away in many cases). Another is the pleasure of work (yes, really). And there are more, individually-determined motivators. Money is, of course, part of the picture. But making and working cannot be reduced to a calculus of profits. This was Marx’s central thesis: we are what we produce and we are the work we do. Thus Schumacher’s fundamentally Marxist argument: make work interesting, meaningful, and good for people, and you will have a steady state of productivity!

Taylor suggest that employers should “help” employees and “work with them.” Which sounds Utopian. Don’t beat them into greater productivity, and don’t expect them to motivate themselves. Instead, “help” them by teaching them “scientific” principles of production. Yeah. This actually sounds like a recipe for controlling and de-personalizing management: early IBM.

“Scientific management” and “task management” are the same thing, according to Winslow. Thus we see the influence on education. Keeping “on task” has become a pre-occupation of the ed establishment.