did you know this?

Apparently, in addition to the commission popularly known as the "9/11 Commission" (officially, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), there's another presidential commission called the "Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Did you know that?

Their Web site address is www.wmd.gov. I swear, I'm not making that up.

Here are a few more presidential commission reports I've stumbled upon:

- Space commission

- President's Commission on the United States Postal Service

- President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health

- President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education

- President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security

this doesn't happen often...

... but I'm going to sing my own praises for just a bit here.

Today was, of course, the midterm-from-hell day of reckoning. I didn't spend an extraordinary amount of time preparing for the exam, but I did do what was needed -- a thorough review of my notes, typing up answers to the practice questions (at least, the parts that didn't require some high-level analysis and critique, because I knew those parts would be different on the exam, anyway), and reading over that nine-page review of answers about a hundred times today.

When I got the exam and read over the three question choices, of which I had to answer two in 90 minutes, I breathed a heavily (and hopefully not too audible) sigh of relief. I knew it was going to be okay.

I took about 15 minutes to sketch out notes on the first two, decided I could competently answer the first two, and went to work writing.

About 1 hr 20 minutes later, I was satisifed I was done.

And I feel *really* good about it.

It could be that I missed something, or got something wrong, or left something out, but to be honest, I'm relatively convinced none of those is the case. I'm confident I answered well and fully. And I'm confident I got an A.

The rest of my class? Not so much.

I think one of the people I would have previously described as the most intelligent and intellectual of our cohort, even, made a grevious error on question #1. I mean, I should rephrase: I'm completely sure that person made an error. This is, of course, creating a serious cognitive dissonance problem for me in that I never would have guessed that person would have been the one to make such a colossal mistake. EEPS!

Ah, well. Maybe all the big talk I hear from my classmates really is just a front; or maybe I'm more brilliant than I'm apt to give myself credit for; or maybe I'm just good at preparation and regurgitation. Whichever is the case, fine. I'm happy.

Will have a grade next week ... and will keep y'all posted! :)

what I know.

I mentioned that I read a WHOLE BUNCH yesterday. And thanks to that, here's what I know:

• The scary-ass midterm next week is a lot less scary now. I went through my notes, and I've only got a few gaps in them. I also made a list of the readings upon which the midterm is based -- readings that were billed as "optional," but seem a whole lot more necessary now that I've seen the review questions. And it's not bad. {/hyperventilation}
• Paul Schuman's article called "Nonincremental Policymaking" is freaking brilliant. I can send you a copy if you really like, though I know it may not thrill you like it did me -- I saved it to read last while at the library last night, because I knew once I started it, I wouldn't want to stop until I was done reading. I thought it was absolute sheer genius and I plan to get to school early on Saturday to talk to Dr. E. about it. I just can't figure out ... why didn't *I* think of this? And, I am really eager to do a lit search to see if others have expanded upon his theory since it was published. If not, well, HELL! I've got a great topic for a future paper! Sweet! :)

(More soon, it's time to head home...!)

could you answer this?

I have a midterm next week ... on Monday, to be precise. This will be my first genuinely challenging test in probably seven years, and I'm totally panicking about it.

(Unfortunately, before I can really panic, I have to cope with the inevitable joys of group work for a group presentation this Saturday... more on that later.)

Yesterday in class, my professor (graciously) provided us with a list of eight rambling questions meant to give us clues about the nature of information to be on this exam. Mind you, we've been talking about (or around) the answers to most of these questions since classes began; however, that doesn't automatically mean I or anyone else could actually *answer* said review questions.

Here's an example -- the easiest, actually, of the eight:

Define science. Discuss three sources of knowledge. Discuss why each of them alone is insufficient to generate accurate knowledge. Discuss why science requires empiricism and rationalism but also belief and faith. What is a better way of bringing mind, sense and faith together in the knowledge-attainment process? Give an example of how science can be self-limiting. Give another example of how it can be cognitively and logically limited.

Alright. So I could probably do a decent job of answering many of the prongs of that question, based on our class discussions. However, I'd never claim that I could, at this moment in time, give an acceptable answer -- gauged by my own sense of "acceptable" as well as, I suspect, my professor's.

But just in case that question didn't really impress you, here's what I currently consider to be the most difficult of the eight:

Discuss what demarcation critera mean to Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos. Discuss what a scientific revolution means to Kuhn and Lakatos. In your thinking, whose demarcation criterion is too restrictive and whose criterion is too permissive? In your thinking, which criterion would kill young theories and which one would allow them to stay past their "natural lifetime"? Kuhn accuses Popper of employing a demarcation criterion that applies only to science-in-crisis -- in your thinking, does scientific progress mean a continual lurching from one theory, program or methodology to another, or could it occur through gradual incrementalism? Discuss how "social communication" among a community could keep science in an ongoing state of normality or problem solving.

Crap.