James Fallows

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for The Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.
  • Cross cultural exchange

    Above-the-fold picture on China Daily special weekly business supplement. Caption says:

    "The official dance troupe of the Dallas Cowboys (a US National Football League team) perform with local elderly at a downtown park in Shanghai."

    How it looked on the page:

    In the circumstances, the "local elderly" don't look that bad! Must be the morning tai chi.

  • More Chinese education! Or, is it really "Chinese"?

    Previously in our series, the complaint has been that the Chinese school system pushes students too hard and in too rote-memorization a way, leaving the victors undeniably tough but maybe drained of their spark and inventiveness. Along the way, many contrary views and debates about the role of the Chinese nationwide university-admission exam, the gaokao.

    Now, two bits of testimony more or less on China's behalf. First, from a Westerner now teaching in Japan, who says that these problems are hardly confined to China. Then from an American (of Chinese ancestry) about an American counterpart to gaokao-style training.

    First, the Westerner teaching at a university in Japan.

    China, Eastern Europe, Japan, it's all the same story. No, it's not a legacy of Communism. The saying here in Japan is similar to the one mentioned by the teacher in Eastern Europe: "The nail that sticks out, gets hammered down."

    I cannot get my students to voice an opinion for love nor money. They do not want to call attention to themselves; stand out from the crowd, or be different in any way. This is the Japanese way. If, by chance, they do have an opinion, they keep it to themselves.

    As a result, they are totally incapable of creative/critical thinking or problem solving abilities.
    At my university, English is required for all freshmen. Most of these students greatly resent having to take English. They are not interested in learning or speaking English. They do not plan to travel or live overseas, and see no practical reason for being forced to study it.

    Now, these students have been sitting in English class for the past six years (soon, 2011 Japan will start English instruction from the fifth grade); however, their English speaking ability is still quite limited. Maybe it is because they were taught in middle-school and high-school by Japanese natives in Japanese, not English. I have no idea how English can be taught by non-English speakers, but there you have it. The Ministry of Education will require English to be taught in English from 2010. This has caused great concern/protest and near-revolt amongst Japanese English teachers.

    In reading articles from various educators in different countries, educators all reference the decline of problem solving/critical thinking skills. This is not exclusively an experience of the ex-pat English teacher abroad. It seems to be indicative of, and causally related to, our information culture; whereby, we can instantly access what we need to know at the touch of a button, or click of a mouse. The notion of knowledge for the sake of knowledge (the liberal arts ideal) is anachronistic at worst and quaintly outdated at best.

    This presents me and all of my educational colleagues world-wide with a new challenge. How can we meet the changing needs/interests of our students? What must I do to reach, engage and energize my apathetic students? It is obvious to me, that traditional or "Old School" pedagogy is not the answer. Educators are teaching in the midst of a revolutionary paradigm shift. Whether this is good or bad for education is ultimately unimportant; it exists and we must accept/adapt and change our philosophy and approach or risk loosing our students, and missing out on a unique opportunity.

    I do not have the answers; so, in a sense, I bring nothing new to the discussion. I share the same concerns, frustrations and pain as the teachers who have written to you. I simply want them to know that it is not something that is limited to their country or region.

    Now, from Richard Ho, in the United States.

    I was struck by the recent letters defending the fairness of the gaokao, and the earlier descriptions of its difficulty yet sometimes dubious relevance to real life work. It  brought to mind the American experience of pre-med and medical education.
    College students in the US typically need to take English, math, biology, inorganic and organic chemistry, and physics in order achieve a good score on the MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) which is part of admission requirements for most US medical schools. Some of those courses are necessary prerequisites for courses in medical school like anatomy, histology, biochemistry, or pharmacology, however I would say that those particular medical school courses and college pre-med courses are for the most part, not very relevant to clinical practice for the vast majority of doctors. I've seen many comments in various forums that the extensive memorization needed in many of these courses is mainly a barrier put up to test the drive and persistence of potential doctors...
    In medical school, the first two years of basic science courses (mostly memorization) at some schools run 8am-5pm M-F with nights and weekends spent studying. In the 3rd and 4th years of traditional medical schools, students are exposed to clinical work in smaller groups, and this is where training gets more practical. Faculty recommendations are part of the evaluation in applying to residencies after medical school, but almost all prospective residents enter "The Match" where a computer program compares student preferences with residency program preferences and assigns each student to a residency program in their chosen specialty. Where one matches can determine the path of the rest of your life - whom you meet and marry, where you settle down and practice, etc. This sounds much like the gaokao experience.
    One of my college colleagues Pauline Chen has written about some aspects of these experiences at the NY Times: 
    Medical Student Burnout and the Challenge to Patient Care

     A Medical Student's Rite of Passage
    So I would say Asia is not unique in instituting mind-numbing and endurance-testing educational processes; they've simply increased the scale!

    More »

  • I'm joining the GOP

    First Al Gore, buffeted Democratic champion ca. 2000, propagates boiled-frog ignorance in his (otherwise laudable) An Inconvenient Truth

    Now Barack Obama, victorious Democratic champion ca. 2008, relies on bogus boiled-frog imagery in a Newsweek interview (as my comrade Jeffrey Goldberg has pointed out).

    Did you consult any former presidents or celebrities about the fishbowl effect in raising the girls?
    Well, you know, the truth of the matter is that the campaign was the equivalent of me being the frog in the saucepan of water and the temperature slowly being turned up. By the time the inauguration had taken place, we had pretty much gotten accustomed to it.

    Say what you will about the linguistic habits of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin; but at this moment I don't remember any of them talking about boiled frogs. The image of young Dickie Cheney in 8th grade science lab with a frog, though, is one to force from the mind. And if these people did in fact talk about boiled frogs, I'll have to join the Greens.

    What should they be talking about instead? The kitty-litter box analogy, as so brilliantly laid out by Don Rose in the Chicago Daily Observer a few months ago. You have cats in your house; you think everything is great; then visitors walk in through the door, reel back in horror, and say, "What is that godawful smell?"  And I say this as a lover of cats. Or as Rose put it, in a column about the colorful ex-governor Rod Blagojevich:

    Out of towners often ask me how it is that folks in Chicago and Illinois put up with all the hanky and panky that goes on in our political snakepits.

    I tell them about my cat litter box.

    Currently I have two cats--once I had nine. In any case, I used to think I kept their potty clean and odor free. Then, every so often someone would come to the door, sniff the air and whisper in confidence, "I think your cat box needs changing."

    They were right, of course. They came from cat-free environments and could sense a drop of urine at 30 paces, while I had grown so desensitized to the aroma that my schnozz would tell me I was romping through a fresh pine forest.

    So it is with the denizens of our city and state.

    And so it should be with us all. As recently as a few hours ago, I was impressed by Obama's use of language. And now....

  • On eloquence vs. prettiness

    Based on its transcript -- here at the Washington Post site, oddly not yet in any obvious place at WhiteHouse.gov [Update: it's now on the White House page, here]-- Barack Obama's Notre Dame commencement speech was another extraordinary performance. "Extraordinary" meaning that it was like his speech last year in Philadelphia about race relations, his speech last month in Prague about nuclear weapons, and, only slightly less impressive, his speech last month at Georgetown University laying out his long term economic plan. Or, on a small scale, his answer in Strasbourg about "American exceptionalism."

    What made these presentations extraordinary was not any single phrase or sentence, nor any paragraph-long flight of fine language. Indeed, I can hardly remember any phrase or sentence from any speech Obama has ever given. (Phrases or sentences are to be distinguished from campaign slogans, like "Yes we can" or "not 'red states' or 'blue states' but the United States of America.") Instead the power of those speeches comes from the quality of their thought -- from the ideas and truths the speaker is trying to grapple with:

    In the case of the race speech, the different burdens and resentments Americans of all background held, and why we had to face and work through them. In the nuclear speech, the dangers that remained long after the Cold War had ended, and America's special opportunity and responsibility to find a solution. In the Notre Dame speech, the difficulty of resolving, in an open democracy, differences of moral certainty that are fiercely held on all sides. And so on. A passage from this latest speech after the jump.

    This kind of eloquence is different from what I think of as rhetorical prettiness -- words and phrases that catch your notice as you hear them, and that often can be quoted, remembered, and referred to long afterwards. "Ask not..." from John F. Kennedy. "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat" from Winston Churchill. "Only thing we have to fear is fear itself" from FDR. "I have a dream," from Martin Luther King. Or, to show that memorable language does not necessarily mean elevated thought, "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" from the early George C. Wallace.

    At rare moments in history, language that goes beyond prettiness to beauty is matched with original, serious, difficult thought to produce the political oratory equivalent of Shakespeare. By acclamation Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address is the paramount American achievement of this sort: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right..."

    The reason to distinguish eloquence of thought from prettiness of expression is that the former tells you something important about the speaker, while the latter may or may not do so. Hired assistants can add a fancy phrase, much as gag writers can supply a joke. Not even his greatest admirers considered George W. Bush naturally expressive, but in his most impressive moment, soon after the 9/11 attacks, he delivered a speech full of artful writerly phrases, eg: "Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." Good for him, and good for his staff.

    Rhetorical polish, that is, can be a staff-enhanced virtue. The eloquence that comes from original thought is much harder to hire, or to fake. This is the sort of eloquence we've seen from Obama often enough to begin to expect.

    The passages that struck me from this speech were the same ones Andrew Sullivan just highlighted:

    I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.

    This is not "pretty" as language. "Fudge it"???  But it is surprisingly honest as thought.

    In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

    But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

    This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

    I challenge you to find a sentence there that will be remembered, "I have a dream"-style. But the thought, complete with non-politician-like emphasis on "irony" and "doubt," is an important one, and not likely staff-borne.

    More »

  • US no-show at Shanghai Expo: the hows and whys (updated)

    Last month Adam Minter of ShanghaiScrap, did our initial Atlantic report on the looming self-inflicted embarrassment of America's no-show status at the 2010 Shanghai Expo / World's Fair.

    The strands of the story are tangled, to put it mildly, and have been hard to follow in scattered press reports. So Minter's latest detailed backgrounder is very useful in explaining how things reached this point, why it matters, and what if anything could be done. Among the points he clarifies, in a list of problems that have affected the proposed US pavilion:

    A.  Cost. Shanghai Expo 2010's [one of the US contenders] $61 million pavilion budget - down from an earlier $84 million budget - is inordinately expensive, and surely the most expensive national pavilion after the elaborate Chinese design.  "For that kind of money [$61 million]," an experienced American businessman in Shanghai told me. "You could build a thirty-story residential tower on that site and still have money left over. But these people want that money for a two story pavilion." In comparison, Germany's elaborate pavilion design is projected to cost US$40.8 million; Norway's elegant structure, a comparatively minor US$22 million. And even those might be overpriced. At the Beijing 2008 Olympics, major commercial pavilions were built for around $1000 per square meter - that is, less than US$5 million. So far, Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc., has failed to provide a detailed public accounting of how it plans to spend its proposed US$61 million, leading to wild and unsubstantiated speculation among experienced China hands in Shanghai.

    [UPDATE: I hear from informed sources that there is some controversy about the importance of whole cost issue, with some other pavilions costing more than this US figure -- and the real question being whether the US can spend this much money in a sensible way with so little time to go. More details as they come in.]

    One image of the proposed US structure Minter is referring to, from this site:

    Full set of images of other countries' structures here. One example I like from that site: the Israeli pavilion, with components of the Whispering Garden, the Hall of Light, and the Hall of Innovations. Israel is a tiny country and this is a relatively small structure, but FWIW Israeli's entire budget for the expo, including construction, is $6 million.


    And here is Italy's (no budget listed). The story is worth following.

  • Europe, America, China respond to the flu

    From Kevin Miller, of the University of Michigan, an observation on why the differing European, American, and Chinese approaches to the current spread of flu might be explained by the respective health threats the areas face:

    I have a colleague, a native German, who went to Germany last week and reported that the general attitude was that Americans were being crazily hysterical about this. It makes sense to me that a) the Chinese are really being hysterical, b) Germans are calm, and c) we're somewhere in between.

    If you look at the medical safety net in each country, this makes perfect sense (plus the big worry that this could combine with bird flu, which they have in China. H1N1 seems to be easy to catch but rarely serious; bird flu is hard to catch but often fatal; flu viruses seem good at swapping DNA within host nuclei. If the same person had both bird flu and H1N1, this could lead to something really bad).

    More »

  • Finale on Colgan / Buffalo crash

    I recognize that it is both heartbreaking and potentially cruel to keep going into details of what exactly led to the commuter-plane crash in February that killed all 49 people aboard the airplane and one person on the ground.  (Previously here.)

    But this story in The Buffalo News, based on the previous week's Federal investigative hearings, clears up one question and raises others about the flight crew's performance.

    The newly answered question is why the plane's airspeed had decreased so much that an automatic "stick-shaker" warning was triggered, indicating that an aerodynamic stall was imminent. Because the earliest reports mentioned that the accident took place in cold and cloudy conditions, I had assumed that ice on the wings and airframe was slowing the plane down.

    But according to NTSB evidence, the effect of icing was minimal. Instead, the flight crew had deliberately or inadvertently slowed the plane themselves, by pulling the throttle back to nearly the "flight idle" position -- and leaving it there. Reduced power is normal when descending or deliberately slowing for an approach, but apparently the power was left too low for too long as the plane's speed decayed to a dangerously low level.

    The extraordinary NTSB animation of the flight's last 2 minutes and 39 seconds dramatizes how it happened. At time 1:40, the plane begins slowing from its cruise speed of about 185 knots. By 2:04 -- with the autopilot holding a constant altitude and the power setting still low -- it had slowed all the way down to 140 knots. That is where the power should have come back in, because the plane had reached its proper approach speed and shouldn't safely go much slower. But the crew left the power at idle, and within four seconds the plane was slowing below 130 knots - at which point the "stick shaker" gave its warning and, tragically, the pilot reacted in exactly the wrong way. The animation shows how quickly this all could happen, and what it looks like when a plane goes into aerodynamic "stall."

    The effect of the pilot's wrong reaction to the stall warning has been frequently discussed in the wake of these hearings. The inattention to approach speed is in a way more puzzling, since it was not an instantaneous, instinctive thing.

     Managing the power on a descent so that you slow down -- but don't get too slow -- is one of the fundamental tasks on an instrument approach. (The others are monitoring the navigation indicators, to make sure you're on course; and monitoring the altitude, to make sure you don't get closer to the ground than you're supposed to at each stage of the descent. Instrument training largely consists of an instructor constantly reminding you of whichever part of the "scan" of flight instruments you are neglecting.) That a two-person team would not notice this first-order aspect of flight safety is very hard to explain.

    Talks about aviation safety often refer to an "accident chain" -- that is, a sequence of events leading to disaster, which could have been broken (avoiding a crash) at any point. Here there seems to be a two-link chain: If the crew had noticed and corrected the decaying air speed, they would never have had to worry about the "stick shaker" alert. Or, if they had responded properly to the stick-shaker, they (probably) could have recovered from the effects of letting the air speed decline.

    None of this makes anything about the situation better. It may clarify some of the training changes that need to occur. (Thanks to reader Judy S for lead to Buffalo News story, and several others for mentioning the NTSB video.)

    More »

  • More Gaokao: a Chinese "red-diaper" perspective

    Lots of fascinating testimony has piled up, on the topic previously covered here. (Gaokao = nationwide university-admission exam in China.) Will parcel it out soon. Here is one from a reader who wishes not to be named. I have omitted only a few comments about people who have written before, using their real names. He starts with his bona fides:

    I have been following the discussion on your blog, on the subject of Chinese gaokao, with interest. Now, before I go on, I feel compelled to state the facts: I had taken the SAT, and received 2400 on it (Yes, one of the less than few hundred a year ones with this result. It is utterly insane in my opinion.) So, I do want to make it clear that this isn't a loser's rant against meritocracy.
    A good deal of talk has been heard on gaokao's relation to fairness.  

    Now let's be clear: it is fair, as fair as can be in human circumstances. But what most people don't realise, and this is the point your reader Ella Zhou has missed, is that the great fairness is its very undoing. It it weren't so fair, creating a market of hundreds of millions of people jostling for the same, limited top spots in society, it wouldn't be such a brutal test. Its inhuman brutality is in direct, linear correlation with its fairness, just as has been the case with the SAT. And frankly, what this pure meritocracy has created in Chinese history, in practical terms, is a very insecure elite, without any ways of passing on significant advantages to children, extremely liable to corruption, as uncorrupt, independent methods do not sufficiently guarantee economic or social security for offspring.

    Keju, the predecessor of Gaokao, is a perfect example. When Han Wu Di created this system two millennia ago, he did not imagine it would now conclude in the logical absurdity which has been the case for approximately the last 500 years. He meant it as a supplementary system to the existing aristocracy, so as to weaken aristocratic power. Through successive dynasties, the Keju has been so perverted that officials, who must take this exam, have become mere leeches of governmental largesse, unequipped with resources of their own, and most crucially, no important advantages to progeny for achieving the same social position as parents.

    For an American comparison, revisit the big-city machine politicians of the post-Civil War era. What were they known for? Corruption and non-existence of professional ethics. And what is their parallel?
    Their wealth, resources, their power, lie purely within a political system, are purely extracted from politics, with little formal powers of dynastic succession. This is the perfect breeding-ground of corruption. And thus has been the nature of Chinese governance for the last half-millennium.

    What makes it worse is the traditional Chinese devotion to the concept of the family. The family unit, the belief holds, is above all, and parents would be expected to do their utmost in advancing the prospects of their progeny by all means necessary, with the quid pro quo being support in old age. Now of course, this, materially, does not apply in the above-discussed case, but the strong cultural imperative, I think you can see, is there.

    To be honest, had I remained in the Chinese school system, I would never even have taken the Gaokao. My parents would have expended maximal resources in giving me preparation in a foreign language (and if they were well-connected they would know that German rather than English is an easier ticket for school admission), and ideally secured me a place in one of the nationally sanctioned foreign language schools.. and avoided the exam altogether, thus isolating me from hundreds of millions of potential competitors for opportunity. One should note that German instruction is provided at far less rigorous and exhausting level than English instruction in China, and the level of preparedness would have varied much more greatly depending on personal resources (i.e., ability to find, and afford tutors). As I said, in China, fair equals brutal.

    In fact, I would have likely gone to the No. 2 Foreign Language Institute in Beijing, and found a way, through bribery or some other mechanism (life-opportunities are harsh in China), to the Foreign Ministry, where I would have gotten a foreign assignment. And I would make no apologies for this either, as prospects for average university graduates in China, even elite ones, are extraordinarily bleak. I was born into a red-diaper family, and given the abundance of chances of failure in the Chinese system, and its inhuman brutality, no precaution, or ethical lapse, would frankly lack warrant for any loving parent. I would find it difficult to object to even the bribery, as much as I am devoted to rule of law, parliamentary democracy, and so forth. Such is the reality of Chinese life.

    I think you can see broken the system is. A Chinese person is expected to have, on a psychological level (not materially or economically, but psychologically), much more social mobility. Meritocracy is supposed to reign supreme. But of course, China-watchers don't realise that meritocracy, in the manner as has been applied in China, equals ethical lapses. Singapore is not a very good example, as almost all Singaporean elites send their kids to boarding schools overseas (UK, Australia, Canada), thus skipping the Singaporean meritocracy altogether. They proceed to elite Sinophone universities like Univ. of Hong Kong, from these places, without the hassle of Chinese-style meritocracy, being evaluated, as Western applicants, on much looser bases. If this were not possible, corruption would be much greater. In Hong Kong, the popular fashion is either British boarding schools, or various international boarding schools. In Taiwan, corruption, as in China, reigns supreme....

    I hope this letter serves you well, and helps you understand the nature of the Chinese system a bit better. The discussion, as I have observed on your blog, is quite ephemeral, and does not at all reach the level of candour that exists in China only privately.

    More »

  • Visas in the time of flu

    If you're thinking about coming to China from the US, you should know that visa rules have recently tightened up dramatically, as they did before the Olympics last year. Here's why.

    Inside China, the detected flu cases have doubled, from one person to two, and the quarantine-and-tracking efforts are stepping up. Newspaper charts have shown the infected people's progress through the country and reported the efforts to find and quarantine everyone who was, say, riding in the same railroad car. A report I saw this morning said that most of the people who had been on the same Beijing-Jinan train with Victim #2 were still "at large."


    [Reader R. Skinner points out the inventive West-to-East rendering of the Toronto->Vancouver-> Beijing flight.]
    Meanwhile, in mail from Chinese readers and in Chinese and English news sources I've seen more and more frequent mentions of the need to crack down on the "real" source of the problem: the United States. Both of the infected people had, after all, come on flights originating in the US (flights from Mexico having been cancelled for quite a while.)  Eg this lead editorial in yesterday's Global Times, the new state run voice to the outside world. 


    I don't see an online source for this item, parts of which you can read if you click on the image to see a larger version. The gist is that the US is again being lax, fat, and happy in not imposing as many internal restrictions to limit the spread of flu as China is doing. Eg:

    "The situation is now clear: the US must respond to the epidemic with more active, effective measures.... At the moment, life in the US is continuing much as before, with Americans traveling as widely as usual... But the impact of swine flu can be disastrous for countries without proper preventive systems....

    "China has taken exhaustive measures to track down all of the people who traveled with the two swine flu victims. A few are still missing, posing a risk to the rest of the population."

    In practice, here is what it means for Americans. In the olden days, ie until last week, if you got in line at a Chinese consulate early enough in the morning to reach the visa window before the noon lunch break, one of your choices would be "expedited" same-day service. For an extra fee of something like $150, you could get the visa after lunch. If you missed the morning rush and applied in the afternoon, you could still normally get your visa the next day. If you had all the right forms and there were no complications, you could more or less count on getting a visa in one or two days.

    Now, "because of flu," expedited handling is called off and visas for Americans are, according to various reports, subject to a mandatory six-working-day processing period. I have heard of one big-deal conference scheduled for next week that has just been scrubbed because attendees couldn't get visas, and various other ripple effects. One more thing to be aware of if you're thinking of a visit.

    More »

  • Twitter-scale reaction on new ambassador to China

    I am at a computer for about 90 seconds until late tonight, but:  the reported selection of Utah's Republican governor Jon Huntsman Jr as the Obama Administration's new ambassador to China is an interesting and surprising choice -- and at face value, a shrewd one. Huntsman is reportedly fluent in Mandarin, based on his time as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan; has an adopted Chinese daughter (plus another from India, in addition to biological children); is experienced in Asia, as a boy-ambassador to Singapore (at age 32) during the first Bush administration; and -- so I gather -- is on the modern-science as opposed to the flat-earth side of the debate about the environmental + climate issues that constitute the most important impending business between the US and China. More later, but on first impression a clever choice from American-interest point of view (completely apart from what it means for internal party politics in the US). Will also give the Chinese leadership something to think about: why the new Democratic president has appointed a rising Republican politician. Sign of bipartisan US views toward China? Etc?

    Subject to revision if there is something important I don't know about Huntsman and his record!

  • Not sure exactly which Chinese people Paul Krugman met...

    ... before writing his column today in the NYT, but:

    While his conclusion -- that China has to be part of global efforts to control carbon emissions -- is obviously correct and important, his premise -- that no one in China admits this -- does not square with my observation over these past three years.* As it happens, I spent this very day at a conference in Beijing where the first five presentations I heard were about emissions-reductions and sustainability in one specific domestic industry. (Also, I wrote in the magazine, a year ago, about Chinese people and organizations making similar efforts in a variety of other fields.)

    If blunt-instrument outside pressure like this column makes it more likely that Chinese authorities will keep making progress, then as a pure matter of power-politics I say: fine. But my guess and observation is that it is just as likely to get their back up -- and encourage the ever-present victimization mentality that makes it less rather than more likely that Chinese authorities will behave "responsibly" on the international stage.

    As I've written a million times (most recently here and here and generally here), arguably the most important thing that will happen on Barack Obama's watch is reaching an agreement with China -- or not -- on environmental and climate issues. We'll see what's the best means toward that end.
    * Krugman says:

    "Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. After all, they declared, the West faced no similar constraints during its development; while China may be the world's largest source of carbon-dioxide emissions, its per-capita emissions are still far below American levels; and anyway, the great bulk of the global warming that has already happened is due not to China but to the past carbon emissions of today's wealthy nations. And they're right...But that unfairness doesn't change the fact that letting China match the West's past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it."

    I've heard that Chinese response too many times to count. But it's mainly a throat-clearing prelude to talking-turkey discussions about what the country will and can do, and under what circumstances.

  • The CIA vs. Sen. Bob Graham: how to keep score at home

    It's easy! If the CIA says one thing and former Sen. Graham says another, then the CIA is lying. Or, "in error," if you prefer.

    (Background here and here, in which Graham says that some of the briefings in which he was allegedly filled in about waterboarding and related techniques never occurred. This matters, because the CIA's claims are part of the same argument that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats in Congress had known about and acquiesced to waterboarding all the way along.)

    Part of the payoff of reaching age 72 and having spent 38 years in public office, as Graham has, is that people have had a chance to judge your reputation. Graham has a general reputation for honesty. In my eyes he has a specific reputation for very good judgment: he was one of a handful of Senators actually to read the full classified intelligence report about the "threats" posed by Saddam Hussein. On the basis of reading it, despite a career as a conservative/centrist Democrat, he voted against the war and fervently urged his colleagues to do the same. "Blood is going to be on your hands," he warned those who voted yes.

    More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)

    So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof.

  • In defense of the 高考: Chinese, foreigners rally to its support!

    Yesterday, two reader-arguments (here and here) that the gaokao or 高考, the standardized, nationwide college-admissions exam for students in China, plays a central role in the parts of Chinese education that people inside and outside the country dislike. (On that larger debate, here.)

    Since then, a flood of correspondence from people generally offering a "Yes, but..." defense of the gaokao. Yes, it's not connected to "real" education. Yes, it makes students' lives hell. Yes... But: it has other advantages. Or, the obvious alternatives would be even worse -- especially given widespread Chinese fear that any more "subjective" system would certainly be rigged. 

    Here is a sampling. Judge for yourself -- and be convinced, at least, that allocating educational opportunity in a country with the scale and extremes of China is a complicated business.

    1. From a reader in China:

    I just read your posts on the nationwide college-admissions exam, the gaokao.  While I agreed that this system did focus too much on memorizing books and exam preparation, it cannot be replaced for the current sociaty.  The advantage of this universal exam system is relative fairness.
    Yes, there are much unfairness in the exam system, i.e. Beijing and Shanghai got too many quotas for the colleges entries, minority groups got extra points, and some can get in based on their privilege and wealth.  However, this system is the most fair and practical one compared to all other alternative systems.  The American system including essays, reference letters, community service experiences...all too subjective and easy to manipulate in China.  The privileged ones will benefit even more from American system and squeeze the poor talented ones out of the best schools. 
    I am all for a reformed education system to promote innovation.  But the first thing the education should achieve is fairness: the best students can be selected to get the best education. 

     2) From Ella Shengru Zhou, a Chinese student who has just finished college in Beijing and will enroll in a Harvard graduate school this fall. She has worked with me as a interpreter and assistant.

    Officially done with my college study today, I feel I just have to say something about the discussion on China's education. I don't think gao kao is the problem in China's education.
    First, any student who has done every year's gao kao exams since 1995 could tell you that the exam itself has been changing. The test-makers have been making a conscious effort to make it rely less on memorization but on creativity. Second, despite the occasional cheating, and different bars of college acceptation for each provinces, gao kao may be the only fair chance a Chinese student has in breaking out his or her social context. The upward-movability for most Chinese is first achieved through this gao kao system ever since its ancient model keju was established.

    Third, it is much easier to criticize gao kao than to suggest a workable alternative. Essays, interviews sound nice but are prone to subjectivity and therefore corruption. China would give students more chances to take gao kao if it could, like the SAT, but the amount of human resources and coordination went into each gao kao is immense. Fourth, it's not the exam, it's the school. I won't even put parents on the list, because a good enough school would get parents' "blind" trust. And this is where I prove my case with my high school.

    I'm one of the unlucky ones that didn't go through gao kao, instead I was accepted by my college half a year before gao kao, through a bao song (recommendation) system reserved for the national science awards winners and top students from the 13 foreign language schools established under the order of Zhou Enlai. When we met , you commented on my English skills, but I owe every bit of that to my high school - everyone from my high school speak good English. We were taught by Chinese, and didn't have more class hour than other schools, but we had a shockingly free environment that encourages ideas, innovation and self-learning.

    Our school was tiny, I enrolled with 80 other students. Now among them, there are soon-to-be Oxford lawyer, philosopher, scientist, Stanford computer scientists, MIT physicist, Columbia mathematician, Peking University historian; there are those who already got into The Foreign Ministry, Xinhua News, and various other crucial national organs.

    But we were not educated under the stereotypical Chinese education model. Self-learning, peer-critique, critical thinking were all essential in our school. We were encouraged to rebuke propaganda - and yes we were a school that commemorated June 4th; we had free press - student magazines, newspapers flourished; we had all sorts of student clubs, from the utterly ridiculous to student rights groups that often made direct demands to the administrators.

    Did our parents know how we were taught in our school? Were they worried that we might be "too liberal for our own good"? Probably yes, but because our graduates are doing so well, our parents had little ground for complaint or interference.

    Most importantly, all this happened despite the fact that the majority of our students had to take gao kao.

    So I think pinning down the problem on something only the government can change, like gao kao, is really not very helpful, the real problem lies with the school, and that is something many people could make a difference in, including the exact same people who are criticizing gao kao.

    3) From a non-Chinese teacher at a college in Shenzhen:

    One of the things I've taken from my experience in Chinese education
    is that issues of efficiency and real-world usefulness play second
    fiddle to an entirely different concept of fairness than what
    Westerners are used to. It's hard to spot unless you ask the right
    questions. A case in point is shoving 50 students into a classroom
    with huge variances in ability simply because they all happened to be
    ranked, sorted, and placed in a homeroom-style class studying a major
    they cannot change and may not have actually chosen. I have nearly
    fluent students mixed with those who melt when asked how their weekend

    When I've asked the local teachers why this is, and why not have
    foreign language classes based on ability (Conversational English
    I/II/III) that students work their way through, they looked genuinely
    shocked. It would be unfair - how could you think to punish a
    struggling student by putting him into a bad class? All students
    deserve the best possible English class.

    If you look back at the old imperial exam system, it had in in-built
    check against nepotism. Theoretically, anybody could memorize a vast
    amount of nearly useless texts written in an obscure non-vernacular
    language and rise to the highest ranks of government. It was mindless
    meritocracy at it's best, measuring tenacity and at least one sort of
    mental skill.

    I think we're witnessing the same thing today. Though my students
    *hated* the Gaokao and know it has little correlation with intellect,
    I get that same shocked expression when I ask if it's the same as in
    America - richer students get higher scores, getting into better
    colleges, repeating a cycle. Most of my students got fairly low
    scores, but blame it on break-ups, stress, or simply being lazy.
    Despite everything, they do believe it's fundamentally fair and most
    students at the top schools did, legitimately, earn their way to the
    top however ridiculous the contest was.

    4) From another non-Chinese person at a university in Hong Kong:

    If you're interested in the subject of examinations and their influence on
    culture, I would HIGHLY recommend that you read (and recommend to your
    readers) this book:

    Author:     Zeng, Kangmin
    Title:      Dragon gate : competitive examinations and their consequences
    Imprint:    London ; New York : Cassell, 1999

    It's a comparative and historical analysis of the examination systems in
    Japan, Taiwan, & Korea. It's interesting to see how these systems were
    influenced by the Chinese examination systems in pre-19th century and then
    heavily by Japanese systems under colonialism and have then developed
    further.  Although it does not deal directly w/ Chinese examination
    systems, I think it offers many insights.

    One particular thing I remember from it was that parents in Taiwan were
    very much against anything BUT "gao kao" results being used for university
    entrance, because it was assumed that grades, teacher recommendations,
    coaches recommendations, etc. were too easily manipulated through bribery,
    favoritism, and other forms of  corruption.

    On anti-hackneyed-language principles, I am against any book about China that has the word "Dragon" in its title (except the ones I like). But this book is ten years old, and maybe the imagery seemed fresher then. It's available here.

    More »

  • Aftermath on Buffalo / Colgan crash

    About the public hearings on the terrible crash in Buffalo three months ago, in which 50 people died:

    - Authoritative wrapup of the situation here by Andy Pasztor of the Wall Street Journal, who has had well-informed stories on this topic from the beginning.

    - This more-complete information supports the hypothesis Pasztor raised early on, as discussed previously here, that the cause of the crash was  a basic and fatal failure of airmanship. That is, at a moment when saving the airplane would have required pushing the plane's nose down -- to regain airspeed and avert an aerodynamic stall -- the pilot apparently fought the autopilot, which was trying to push the nose down, and succeeded in pulling the nose up. This further reduced airspeed and, apparently, put the plane into a full stall, at which point it stopped flying and fell to the ground. If you're not 100% confident on the difference between aerodynamic "stalls" and normal stalls, see the note after the jump.*

    - The complete transcript of over-the-airwaves transmissions and in-cockpit chatter, available in PDF from the WSJ site here, has the intrinsic horrific fascination of any document of this sort. You know you are observing the routine preoccupations and chit-chat of people who don't realize, as you do, that they are in their final moments of life. I don't share the total astonishment of some commentary about how much of the en route talk is "unprofessional" -- about career plans and family problems and the rest. Given how things turned out, any banter whatsoever now looks very bad. But none of it would have mattered save for the one horrible error in judgment and reaction. Had the pilot pushed forward on the stick rather than pulled back, in all likelihood it would have been another normal flight -- albeit in rough winter conditions -- and he and everyone else would now be going about their regular lives.
    - Of course the big question is how much the loosey-goosey atmosphere in the cockpit had to do with that awful error. Miles O'Brien, a pilot and ex-correspondent for CNN, has his thoughts on the subject here.

    - This is NOT crash related, but for a way to see what it is like to descend into a cloud bank on an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) landing, check out this YouTube video taken from inside the cockpit of a Cirrus SR-22 in the last three minutes of its approach to runway 16R at Van Nuys airport. (The Cirrus is a four-seat single-engine plane of the type that, as it happens, Miles O'Brien flies and that I used to own and fly before coming to China.) The shot does not concentrate on the instrument panel during the descent, which is what the pilot is obsessively scanning when he can't see anything outside the window. Also,the propeller appears to "stop" or move jerkily at times, just because of a strobe effect with the camera. But the beginning and end of the clip conveys something most passengers never see: how it looks to enter the clouds, and then finally to see the runway -- in this case, underneath quite a low cloud ceiling. Really, watch this and you'll have an idea of the mantra drummed into your head a million times in instrument-flight training: that you've got to watch the instruments and trust the instruments, because there is no other guide to where you're headed.

    (UPDATE: YouTube appears to be getting Firewalled again in China, as happens from time to time. I posted this link while using a VPN, as I do most of the time to get around the firewall. But after hearing complaints from others, I turned the VPN off and couldn't reach YouTube from Beijing. Oh well.)

    - Speaking of runway 16R at Van Nuys Airport, here is the site for a movie called One Six Right, about that very runway and the activity that surrounds it. It's for sale on DVD rather than free download, but it is visually very rich, eye-opening, and fascinating to watch. It also talks about all the routine safety measures that are normally built into aviation, and which in this Buffalo case didn't prevent a huge tragedy.


    * Stalls: There really should be a different word for this aerodynamic phenomenon, because people assume it's like an engine stall -- which it isn't. Fundamentally, an airplane stalls when it flies too slowly to stay in the air. That's not the technical definition, which has to do with the "angle of attack" of the wings, but it's close enough. In most cases that is because the pilot is pulling the nose up too high into the air, and in most cases the remedy is to push the nose down. (There are other options in some cases, like easing off from a too-steep turn.) Pushing the nose down makes the plane go faster,  which can take it back above its dangerous "stalling speed." The easiest way to think of this is like riding a bicycle. When a bike goes too slowly, it can't stay upright. Heading uphill, which is the equivalent of pulling the nose up, slows the bike down and increases the risk it will topple over. Heading downhill -- pushing the nose down -- does the reverse.

    There is a special circumstance in which pulling the nose back could have been the right option. This would be if the airplane had suffered a "tailplane stall," as discussed here. But there is no evidence that this was the case -- and anyway the flight crew never discussed that possibility, or anything about their declining airspeed, before the pilot made his fatal mistake.

    More »

  • Further on the 高考

    From Joshua Davis, a foreigner teaching English in China, a further critique of the nationwide college-admissions exam, the gaokao, following this one earlier today by another foreign teacher. These are worth noting less for the novelty of the complaint (objecting to the effects of the test on Chinese education is like objecting to the effects of money on American politics) than for giving examples of how central and powerful the test's effects are. Mr. Davis writes:

    Earlier this year, I decided that one of the things that stifles creativity in China more than anything else was high school. All Chinese students are required to take an all inclusive, end-all, be-all exam at the end of their high school careers called the Gao Kao.. If I can remember from the top of my head, this test includes physics, biology, math, politics, Chinese, English, history, geography, and maybe 3 or 4 others.

    Because this is the only grade that actually matters in high school, it's the sole determiner for students going on to college. There is no college essay, interviews, etc. The only thing that matters is the gao kao.
    Now combine that with the fact that modern Chinese society under the one child policy produces extremely edgy parents who desperately want their children to succeed in a society that produces 4 million college graduates per year and only 1.6 million college level jobs. The result is that high school students in China are under extreme pressure to score highly on the gao kao. Thus, since high schools also compete with each other for government grants in the form of higher scores on the gao kao, you have the average Chinese high school student's day looking like this:

    Wake up
    Morning reading
    Evening reading

    Also, though it varies from school to school, most of my students tell me that in high school, they only got 2 days off every month. Quite a difference from when I was in high school and after 2:30, I just went home and played video games and slept all day on the weekends!...  In my experience, most of the time, if the student is not doing required homework, they are doing extra homework, taking extra classes, doing extra reading (class related -- I've actually been told that parents who discover their children doing recreational reading will scold them for not studying), taking private English lessons, and in rare cases, studying an instrument. This sort of pressure, I think, is the reason why, when I taught some of my Chinese friends here how to play American football yesterday, none of them knew how to throw a ball effectively; and why when I first met my (close to 200) students, only 2 actively practice Chinese martial arts, 1 plays soccer, and none play an instrument.

    Lastly, a strange phenomenon that I've not heard of anywhere else is that students in high schools can often be seen reading in classrooms here -- and then looking up at the ceiling and mouthing the words they just read. The goal here is to memorize what's been written. As an example, I work at a medical university with over 100 foreign students. A few of the students told me that they were attending a lecture one time, given by a Chinese student, in English. They noticed very quickly that they were able to read exactly what the student was saying as she said it from their textbook because she had memorized, word for word, her entire lecture. Another example can be seen with students who take the post-graduate entrance examination and memorize, again word for word, all the essays that will be tested in the exam.

    I think it's this linear, memorization-based (as Randy Pollock noted) learning environment with an absolute lack of recreational time in an extremely high pressure society that smothers the students' creativity.

    Some Chinese perspective coming shortly.

    More »


The Death of Film

You'll never hear the whirring sound of a projector again.


How to Hunt With Poison Darts

A Borneo hunter explains one of his tribe's oldest customs: the art of the blowpipe


A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon

An action figure and his reluctant sidekick trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.


I Am an Undocumented Immigrant

"I look like a typical young American."


Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion



From This Author