Another area where we try too hard is health. Many doctors now recommend that parents give their children daily nutritional supplements, despite the fact that all of the nutrients required by a healthy body can be obtained by eating a balanced diet and by going outside.
The latest fad is vitamin D. After a series of studies came out at the same time and drew the media’s attention to the importance of vitamin D (despite the fact that dietitians have known about it for years), everyone got excited and started to take supplements.
But we seemed to forget than an average light skinned individual can meet daily vitamin D requirements by spending 15 minutes outside. The sun is also arguably a superior source of vitamin D because the body naturally regulates its consumption, so the risk of overdose associated with taking pills is eliminated.
Among the parents who know this, many still prefer that their kids stay inside, or to avoid being out without sunscreen, because of the UV rays. That forces the children to take pills, because even the lightest sunscreen (SPF-8) reduces vitamin D consumption by 95%. What nobody seems to understand is that there exists a natural sunscreen which doesn’t impede vitamin D consumption and allows the body to spend twice as long in the sun as would normally be safe. It’s an antioxidant called astaxanthin, and it is found in shrimp, crab, wild salmon, lobster and other red sea animals.
Any child who eats a balanced diet and who regularly goes outside will therefore get plenty of astaxanthin and vitamin D, without having to take any pills. That child will also benefit from leading an active lifestyle and eliminating artificial sources of nutrients, which can never be as good as the ones provided by nature. This is what concerned parents should be pushing for. Rather than coming home every fortnight with a container of multivitamins and protein supplements, they should home-cook balanced meals for supper and eat them as a family at the diner table. They should also get their children to walk or bike to school, and to only use sunscreen for prolonged exposure in the sun.
This might seem like common sense, but according to a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, 40% of Canadian children eat less than five meals a week with their family, including breakfast and lunch. Since the meals that they eat alone are unlikely to be particularly nutritious, it’s unlikely that they eat a balanced diet, hence the need for supplements.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Trying Too Hard (1)
We all want Canadian children to be the best they can be. We want them to be healthy, successful at everything they try, and we want them to be safe and happy.
Today, the standards are very high. Parents know that their children must not simply look well fed and exercised to be healthy, but also get precise daily amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals. Competition for places in high schools, arts and sports programmes and elite Universities is fiercer than ever before, and the required level of accomplishment of candidates has increased proportionately. The definition of good parenting has also changed. If, fifty years ago, parents were expected to give their children care and affection, today they must also give them time. Many parents drive their kids to school now, to hockey practices of course, and stay in touch all day on cell phones.
It’s natural for parents and educators to want to do everything in their power to help Canadian children meet these standards of excellence, but I sometimes feel that they try too hard.
Children as young as two are now being enrolled in early-learning math and language programmes. Teachers are also expected, by the school board and by anxious parents, to start hading out homework in grade one. By the time they reach grade six (eleven years of age) it is quite common for children to bring home two to three hours of homework every night.
The problem is that numerous academic studies have demonstrated that homework has little or no benefit in primary school. After grade seven, students who regularly complete their homework tend to be the most academically successful, but this does not mean that homework is responsible for making them academically successful.
If the benefits of homework are at best unclear, the side effects are glaringly obvious. A child who spends 7 hours a day in school and three more hours every evening locked up in a bedroom with homework is not a child who will spend very much time outside. It’s not a child who will have much free time either.
Yet I can attest that all children need free time, and not just to relax like adults who work less than they do. Children need free time to be creative, because it’s no good trying to come up with new ideas when one is permanently locked up in a small room solving math problems.
The greatest irony is that schools have been asked for some time to make creativity a priority, so teachers now tell grade ten students to draw as homework a colourful title page for their math binder. They also encourage students to deliver presentations on “original” media, even if it means compromising on the quality of the content.
This is what I mean by “trying too hard”. In our haste to make children creative and academically successful, we prescribe loads of homework, whose effect is to take away the free time that allows for creativity to blossom. (To be continued)
Today, the standards are very high. Parents know that their children must not simply look well fed and exercised to be healthy, but also get precise daily amounts of protein, vitamins and minerals. Competition for places in high schools, arts and sports programmes and elite Universities is fiercer than ever before, and the required level of accomplishment of candidates has increased proportionately. The definition of good parenting has also changed. If, fifty years ago, parents were expected to give their children care and affection, today they must also give them time. Many parents drive their kids to school now, to hockey practices of course, and stay in touch all day on cell phones.
It’s natural for parents and educators to want to do everything in their power to help Canadian children meet these standards of excellence, but I sometimes feel that they try too hard.
Children as young as two are now being enrolled in early-learning math and language programmes. Teachers are also expected, by the school board and by anxious parents, to start hading out homework in grade one. By the time they reach grade six (eleven years of age) it is quite common for children to bring home two to three hours of homework every night.
The problem is that numerous academic studies have demonstrated that homework has little or no benefit in primary school. After grade seven, students who regularly complete their homework tend to be the most academically successful, but this does not mean that homework is responsible for making them academically successful.
If the benefits of homework are at best unclear, the side effects are glaringly obvious. A child who spends 7 hours a day in school and three more hours every evening locked up in a bedroom with homework is not a child who will spend very much time outside. It’s not a child who will have much free time either.
Yet I can attest that all children need free time, and not just to relax like adults who work less than they do. Children need free time to be creative, because it’s no good trying to come up with new ideas when one is permanently locked up in a small room solving math problems.
The greatest irony is that schools have been asked for some time to make creativity a priority, so teachers now tell grade ten students to draw as homework a colourful title page for their math binder. They also encourage students to deliver presentations on “original” media, even if it means compromising on the quality of the content.
This is what I mean by “trying too hard”. In our haste to make children creative and academically successful, we prescribe loads of homework, whose effect is to take away the free time that allows for creativity to blossom. (To be continued)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Fox News
After a nice March holiday, I'm back once again.
Only a short post today, about a ridiculous situation that is unfolding between the Canadian government and Fox News.
On March 17th, Fox News' late night talk show Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld hosted a four minute discussion about Canada's mission in Afghanistan. But instead of praising Canada's work, they spend most of their time ridiculing the Canadian military and making fun of Canadians. They laughed hard at the suggestion by Canadian Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie that the Forces may need to take a year long break in operations due to equipment and personnel shortages. Greg Gutfeld said that the military “wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white capri pants,”
Fox News is not a very serious station, and this talk show airs late at night when no one is watching. Greg Gutfield actually describes his program as:
"We just sit down and talk about junk. We have no props, no high end production values, no huge guest stars. I am the most inexperienced talk show host in the history of television. I'd describe it as a chat show for miscreants.”
So guess what our government did: they demanded an official apology. Defense Minister Peter MacKay personally responded to Fox News, and the Canadian media made it a front page story. Greg Gutfield, obviously delighted that someone finally took notice of him, responded by writing “My apologies to the Canadian military, they probably could at least beat the Belgians." MacKay got even angrier and the Globe and Mail published a big article titled "Fox News host makes a farce of his apology".
The irony of the situation is that by getting angry at being portrayed as a insignificant little country, we are making ourselves look like a insignificant little country. Because let's face it, only small nations get excited when a Far-Right foreign TV station insults their military. Real powers have other things on their mind.
Only a short post today, about a ridiculous situation that is unfolding between the Canadian government and Fox News.
On March 17th, Fox News' late night talk show Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld hosted a four minute discussion about Canada's mission in Afghanistan. But instead of praising Canada's work, they spend most of their time ridiculing the Canadian military and making fun of Canadians. They laughed hard at the suggestion by Canadian Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie that the Forces may need to take a year long break in operations due to equipment and personnel shortages. Greg Gutfeld said that the military “wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white capri pants,”
Fox News is not a very serious station, and this talk show airs late at night when no one is watching. Greg Gutfield actually describes his program as:
"We just sit down and talk about junk. We have no props, no high end production values, no huge guest stars. I am the most inexperienced talk show host in the history of television. I'd describe it as a chat show for miscreants.”
So guess what our government did: they demanded an official apology. Defense Minister Peter MacKay personally responded to Fox News, and the Canadian media made it a front page story. Greg Gutfield, obviously delighted that someone finally took notice of him, responded by writing “My apologies to the Canadian military, they probably could at least beat the Belgians." MacKay got even angrier and the Globe and Mail published a big article titled "Fox News host makes a farce of his apology".
The irony of the situation is that by getting angry at being portrayed as a insignificant little country, we are making ourselves look like a insignificant little country. Because let's face it, only small nations get excited when a Far-Right foreign TV station insults their military. Real powers have other things on their mind.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Le problème Rancourt
Denis Rancourt est professeur Titulaire de physique à l’Université d’Ottawa. Reconnu pour ses travaux en magnétisme, il est en conflit avec son employeur depuis plusieurs années à cause de ses méthodes d’enseignement extrêmement controversées. En décembre 2008, M. Rancourt a été expulsé du campus universitaire par des membres du personnel de sécurité. On lui a interdit d’y revenir –le campus étant, bien évidemment, la propriété de l’Université- et on l’a informé que des procédures seraient mises en œuvre pour obtenir son congédiement.
Officiellement, l’Université d’Ottawa reproche à Denis Rancourt d’avoir attribué la note maximale à tous ses élèves de quatrième année dès le premier jour de classe. Mais il est dans le collimateur de ses supérieurs depuis assez longtemps. En 2005, M. Rancourt avait suscité l’ire de plusieurs collègues en faisant de l’activisme social dans un cours de physique de l’environnement. Il s’était défendu en expliquant que c’était un acte volontaire de protestation contre l’ingérence de l’Université dans son enseignement. M. Rancourt s’était aussi rendu célèbre en fondant un club de cinéma politique, sans le consentement de l’Université, qui se réunissait chaque semaine dans un local prêté. On a lui reproché d’exprimer ses opinions politiques pendant ces séances et d’inviter des personnalités controversées comme Malalai Joya, une députée du Parlement Afghan qui milite contre la présence militaire occidentale dans son pays.
La situation de Denis Rancourt soulève plusieurs questions importantes au sujet de la liberté académique. Jusqu’à présent, il n’y a pas de définition universellement reconnue de cette doctrine et il existe des divergences d’opinions importantes au sein même du corps professoral. L’Association canadienne des professeures et des professeurs d’université, un groupe de pression qui dit représenter 65 000 universitaires au Canada, définit la liberté académique comme « le droit d'enseigner, d'apprendre, d'étudier et de publier sans craindre l'orthodoxie ou la menace de représailles et la discrimination.» Mais cette définition ne trouve pas écho chez tous les professeurs qui ont été rencontrés pour ce reportage. L’un d’entre eux, qui a souhaité rester anonyme, pense plutôt que la liberté académique concerne « le droit de choisir son domaine de recherche et ses méthodes de travail.»
Un problème fondamental est de savoir si la liberté académique s’applique uniquement à la recherche ou si elle a aussi sa place en salle de classe. À l’Université d’Ottawa, les professeurs ont la pleine discrétion en tout ce qui trait à l’organisation de leurs cours et au style d’enseignement. Par contre, le contenu du cours doit se conformer à l’intitulé et le système de notation du département doit être respecté. Pour Denis Rancourt, ces deux obligations constituent une restriction de la liberté académique, mais l’Université réplique que c’est la seule façon d’assurer la qualité de l’enseignement et la cohérence des notes.
Les étudiants sont divisés sur la question. Si certains ont dit craindre que l’attribution de notes gratuites par M. Rancourt ne diminue la valeur de leur diplôme, d’autres se sont portés à la défense du professeur de physique en affirmant que toutes les méthodes devaient être tolérées à l’Université. Ce qui reste clair, c’est que la question de crédibilité du diplôme doit être prise au sérieux. Les étudiants passent au minimum quatre années de leur vie à l’Université et ils ont le droit d’exiger que leur travail soit reconnu. Cela ne veut pas dire qu’il faut dogmatiquement adopter le système de notation conventionnel (plusieurs Ivy League utilisent le système pass/fail dans certains cours) mais il faut clairement définir la valeur du travail de l’étudiant et des notes qui lui sont attribuées.
Jusqu’à nouvel ordre, Denis Rancourt reste banni du campus en attendant que l’Université et le syndicat décident de son sort. Il garde son salaire de professeur et il rencontre ses étudiants diplômés dans des cafés. Cette affaire n’aura fait aucun bien à l’Université d’Ottawa qui regrette peut-être déjà de s’en être pris à un professeur qui fait autant de bruit. En tout cas, quel qu’en soit le dénouement, elle aura jeté la lumière sur plusieurs questions fondamentales de liberté académique qui restent non résolues.
Officiellement, l’Université d’Ottawa reproche à Denis Rancourt d’avoir attribué la note maximale à tous ses élèves de quatrième année dès le premier jour de classe. Mais il est dans le collimateur de ses supérieurs depuis assez longtemps. En 2005, M. Rancourt avait suscité l’ire de plusieurs collègues en faisant de l’activisme social dans un cours de physique de l’environnement. Il s’était défendu en expliquant que c’était un acte volontaire de protestation contre l’ingérence de l’Université dans son enseignement. M. Rancourt s’était aussi rendu célèbre en fondant un club de cinéma politique, sans le consentement de l’Université, qui se réunissait chaque semaine dans un local prêté. On a lui reproché d’exprimer ses opinions politiques pendant ces séances et d’inviter des personnalités controversées comme Malalai Joya, une députée du Parlement Afghan qui milite contre la présence militaire occidentale dans son pays.
La situation de Denis Rancourt soulève plusieurs questions importantes au sujet de la liberté académique. Jusqu’à présent, il n’y a pas de définition universellement reconnue de cette doctrine et il existe des divergences d’opinions importantes au sein même du corps professoral. L’Association canadienne des professeures et des professeurs d’université, un groupe de pression qui dit représenter 65 000 universitaires au Canada, définit la liberté académique comme « le droit d'enseigner, d'apprendre, d'étudier et de publier sans craindre l'orthodoxie ou la menace de représailles et la discrimination.» Mais cette définition ne trouve pas écho chez tous les professeurs qui ont été rencontrés pour ce reportage. L’un d’entre eux, qui a souhaité rester anonyme, pense plutôt que la liberté académique concerne « le droit de choisir son domaine de recherche et ses méthodes de travail.»
Un problème fondamental est de savoir si la liberté académique s’applique uniquement à la recherche ou si elle a aussi sa place en salle de classe. À l’Université d’Ottawa, les professeurs ont la pleine discrétion en tout ce qui trait à l’organisation de leurs cours et au style d’enseignement. Par contre, le contenu du cours doit se conformer à l’intitulé et le système de notation du département doit être respecté. Pour Denis Rancourt, ces deux obligations constituent une restriction de la liberté académique, mais l’Université réplique que c’est la seule façon d’assurer la qualité de l’enseignement et la cohérence des notes.
Les étudiants sont divisés sur la question. Si certains ont dit craindre que l’attribution de notes gratuites par M. Rancourt ne diminue la valeur de leur diplôme, d’autres se sont portés à la défense du professeur de physique en affirmant que toutes les méthodes devaient être tolérées à l’Université. Ce qui reste clair, c’est que la question de crédibilité du diplôme doit être prise au sérieux. Les étudiants passent au minimum quatre années de leur vie à l’Université et ils ont le droit d’exiger que leur travail soit reconnu. Cela ne veut pas dire qu’il faut dogmatiquement adopter le système de notation conventionnel (plusieurs Ivy League utilisent le système pass/fail dans certains cours) mais il faut clairement définir la valeur du travail de l’étudiant et des notes qui lui sont attribuées.
Jusqu’à nouvel ordre, Denis Rancourt reste banni du campus en attendant que l’Université et le syndicat décident de son sort. Il garde son salaire de professeur et il rencontre ses étudiants diplômés dans des cafés. Cette affaire n’aura fait aucun bien à l’Université d’Ottawa qui regrette peut-être déjà de s’en être pris à un professeur qui fait autant de bruit. En tout cas, quel qu’en soit le dénouement, elle aura jeté la lumière sur plusieurs questions fondamentales de liberté académique qui restent non résolues.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Don Cherry
Last Saturday, my father and I were in the basement together and decided to turn on the TV to see if any interesting programs were playing. Don Cherry appeared on the screen, so we decided to watch his little segment.
Cherry was in the middle of a rant about Alexander Ovechkin, the russian superstar who is currently leading the NHL in scoring and is widely regarded as the league's most exciting player. Cherry said that Ovechkin's way of celebrating was over the top and that it made him think of soccer. He then said, on National Television, that "one day, some guy is going to get him", which was really a call to less-talented NHL players to set out to injure Ovechkin.
Cherry then talked about Steve Mason, a very good goalie currently playing for the Columbus Blue Jackets. Cherry said that the Toronto Maple Leafs could have drafted the Ontario-born Mason, but instead went for two Russians. Cherry concluded that this explained Toronto's lack of success. We turned the TV off after that.
In Quebec, there are some noisy hard-line separatists such as Pierre Falardeau who are often criticized, in their own province and in English Canada, for their monochrome vision of Quebec society. English-speaking journalists often point to individuals like Falardeau to demonstrate the dangers of separation.
But between Don Cherry and Falardeau, what's the difference (aside from the fact that Cherry is paid 600 000 $ a year by the CBC for a 10 minute weekly show while Falardeau is despised by most Quebecers)? Cherry is blatantly racist and anti-francophone. He also incited the use of violence of National Television.
The fact that he is still employed by the CBC can suggest two things:
-either he exists as a clown and nobody takes him seriously, in which case he should be asked to put a lid on the racism and violent remarks
-or he caters to a certain chunk of the English-Canadian population which identifies to his comments. This would make him a true Ontario equivalent to Pierre Falardeau. In that case, we should be worried.
Let's hope that the first option is the right one.
Cherry was in the middle of a rant about Alexander Ovechkin, the russian superstar who is currently leading the NHL in scoring and is widely regarded as the league's most exciting player. Cherry said that Ovechkin's way of celebrating was over the top and that it made him think of soccer. He then said, on National Television, that "one day, some guy is going to get him", which was really a call to less-talented NHL players to set out to injure Ovechkin.
Cherry then talked about Steve Mason, a very good goalie currently playing for the Columbus Blue Jackets. Cherry said that the Toronto Maple Leafs could have drafted the Ontario-born Mason, but instead went for two Russians. Cherry concluded that this explained Toronto's lack of success. We turned the TV off after that.
In Quebec, there are some noisy hard-line separatists such as Pierre Falardeau who are often criticized, in their own province and in English Canada, for their monochrome vision of Quebec society. English-speaking journalists often point to individuals like Falardeau to demonstrate the dangers of separation.
But between Don Cherry and Falardeau, what's the difference (aside from the fact that Cherry is paid 600 000 $ a year by the CBC for a 10 minute weekly show while Falardeau is despised by most Quebecers)? Cherry is blatantly racist and anti-francophone. He also incited the use of violence of National Television.
The fact that he is still employed by the CBC can suggest two things:
-either he exists as a clown and nobody takes him seriously, in which case he should be asked to put a lid on the racism and violent remarks
-or he caters to a certain chunk of the English-Canadian population which identifies to his comments. This would make him a true Ontario equivalent to Pierre Falardeau. In that case, we should be worried.
Let's hope that the first option is the right one.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Good Article
Read this article by Brian Laghi of the Globe.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090301.wPOLconservative02/BNStory/politics/home
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090301.wPOLconservative02/BNStory/politics/home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)