This afternoon I came across a paper published in The Journal of Wine Economics (JWE) 3-4 years ago that reported a study where blind tasting was used to test whether expensive wines tasted better than less expensive wines. I was interested in this study because of my long belief that the plethora of wine raters in the world single handedly discourage the success of many really good wines and, at least to some degree, assign ratings for reasons other than quality. In fact, the paper cites a prior study (Hadj Ali et al. 2007) that claimed to find a strongly positive correlation between the price of wine and its Robert Parker rating. In fairness I have not read this paper but it is highly likely that the claim is true.
The blind tastings used to collect data in the JWE paper were well designed and the authors were generally honest about the sample's limitations. When the authors analyzed their data two key findings emerged:
1) There was absolutely no relationship between the price of wine and the quality of the wine as perceived by the tasters.
The authors were honest about the fact that even though the sample was fairly large (more than 500 tasters) most likely had greater than an average level of education and an interest in wine. What this means is that the sample did not represent "average America" but rather those who generally enjoy wine. The authors assessment of the sample is certainly true but my guess is that the sample adequately represents the segment of the population that is most likely to buy wine (at least something other than Ripple). In actuality the data suggested that more expensive wines are less preferred than less expensive wines in the sample but the regression coefficient is so small that I doubt this is meaningful. It is more likely that the variety of individual pallets in wine drinkers does not process a price variable in determining what they like or don't like. While this analysis is not directly related to wine ratings I suspect it is fair to say that if this study were repeated substituting wine rating for price you would get similar results. Face it. Those that rate wines cannot possibly speak for every enophile in the country and likely speak only for one or a few people.
2) Expert wine tasters rated more expensive wines higher than less expensive wines.
On the surface this result suggests that if you have a trained pallet that you are better able to distinguish good from bad wine. Here is where the author's data set breaks down a bit. First, the statistics associated with this conclusion are far less concrete than the first conclusion above. I won't bore you with the details but the way the regression model (yes, now I'm talking like a scientist) falls out leaves some uncertainty. The authors are honest about this. My other concern, not addressed by the authors is how the subsample of experts was defined. An individual in the sample was considered an expert based on profession (e.g. sommelier; about 12% of the total sample). However, I would contend that what one actually tastes when drinking wine is stingily influenced by genetics (the physiologist in me is talking here) as anything else. If this result is true it is equally likely that a trained person is good at recognizing an expensive wine, which adds bias to the result. Further, it is highly likely that many in the remaining component of the sample were skilled tasters with pallets developed equally to those defined as experts. Bottom line is that this separation is pretty artificial.
Another issue I would have with this study is that the wines used were broadly drawn from various varietals and countries. Thus, individual preference for varietal and place of origin were not controlled for. When this is considered the sample size no longer looks big enough to swamp out the error that could result from this omission. Since I live in the Willamette Valley I would very much like to repeat this study focusing solely on Willamette Valley Pinot Noirs (for example) and see how the results hold up. Maybe I will one of these days.
It has been said many times that wines fall into two categories: wines you like and wines you don't like. I honestly believe this to be true. I also believe that the plethora of wine ratings out there today discourage many from trying new things and broadly exploring what the growing wine industry has to offer. There is something for everybody out there because we are all different. Wineries go after ratings because like it or not it drives sales. However, if we can ever convince ourselves to ignore the Robert Parkers of the world I think we would discover wines that are more diverse that we ever imagined and also wine prices that reflected production costs rather than someone else's opinion of quality.
Cheers
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
It's No Secret....Just Get Over Yourself
I'm sitting at McDonald's this morning (seems I write a lot of these at McDonald's) doing my normal morning thing (reading the news, taking care of odd tasks, etc.) and for whatever reason was thinking about all the praise and accolade I have received over the past several weeks for being married to one woman for 32 years. Until today I hadn't really thought much of it. Being married to the love of my life and best friend Theo is as natural to me as breathing so the fact that our marriage continues after 32 years just didn't seem like a big deal. After all, isn't that the way it is supposed to be?
My 32 years of marriage is far from a record. Yesterday I was filing away some old newspaper clippings and came across a short article from 1999 announcing Theo's aunt and uncle's 60th anniversary. I am barely half way there. Yet the reality is that marriages that endure "till death we do part" are quickly going the way of the dinosaur. Last Friday on the front page of USA Today one headline reported that 41% of children born in this era are born to single mothers or are raised for some period of time in a single-parent home. Having grown up without a father at home and knowing first hand the holes this creates in ones life I could not help but feel sadness when I saw this statistic. This statistic is of course related at least in part to the rising divorce rate in this country. Exact statistics on divorce rate vary depending on the source, but most sources generally agree that up to 50% of all first marriages will end in divorce. It is easy to blame this on poor preparation of our youth for marriage (more on that later) but if you dissect the statistics the divorce rate actually rises to as much as 75% for a third marriage. This suggests that "practice makes perfect" rarely applies to relationships. Understand that I am well aware that there instances of special circumstance that make walking away from a marriage unavoidable and perhaps even the right thing to do. Even so the trend is alarming.
My expertise on marriage is confined to my knowledge on what has made mine work. As a man of faith I grew up with the clear understanding that marriage was intended to last the duration of ones life. Whether or not one shares my faith understanding the marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment it where it all starts. A solid marriage is not built on emotions, hormones, and other physiological components of attraction. Not that these things are bad, but they are simply the rewards and sometimes consequences of a healthy marriage relationship. Over the years I've had some interesting conversations with my sons regarding "finding the one." My advice has always been (this is the Reader's Digest version) that there is nothing wrong with physical attraction, but in the end they better have a deep friendship with their life partner because that is what the love that solidifies a marriage is base upon. The wonderful benefit that comes from this foundation is that the physical attraction never goes away because your life partner never deviates from perfect.
In my view the number one reason why marriages fail is selfishness. As a spouse I can never evaluate the success of my marriage based on the meeting of my needs. Instead I base the success of my marriage on whether or not I am meeting the needs of my spouse. I can never give with the expectation of getting something back. If both partners pursue their relationship in this way it is pretty easy to see how healthy balance is achieved. Instead of a 50:50 proposition you benefit from a 100:100 proposition. If you owned a business wouldn't you jump all over that? As strange as it sounds in many ways marriage is like a business because it is all about managing resources in such a way that it grows and prospers (you can define resources any way you like). It takes work. You have good times and bad. If you do it well it just gets better and better and less susceptible perturbations. If one or both partners in marriage approaches the relationship selfishly it simply does not work because in my experience selfish people's personal needs are never satisfied. If you want to have a good marriage..get over yourself...and focus on building the partnership so the marriage will endure.
I will conclude by saying that saving the institution of marriage has importance beyond the quality of life for husband and wife. If you look at what is happening to our youth today one would be hard pressed to argue that growing up without a true family is healthy. I could write a lot on this just from my own experience but won't do that today. Suffice to say that there are periods in a child's life where mentoring, by both mother and father, set the course to adulthood. With so many children being raised today by single parents I'm left to wonder if our next generation will be equipped to mentor the generation that follows. Single parents are not necessarily bad people, but as I witnessed with my own mother rarely have the time to make life work and still be a full-time mom or dad.
Cheers
My 32 years of marriage is far from a record. Yesterday I was filing away some old newspaper clippings and came across a short article from 1999 announcing Theo's aunt and uncle's 60th anniversary. I am barely half way there. Yet the reality is that marriages that endure "till death we do part" are quickly going the way of the dinosaur. Last Friday on the front page of USA Today one headline reported that 41% of children born in this era are born to single mothers or are raised for some period of time in a single-parent home. Having grown up without a father at home and knowing first hand the holes this creates in ones life I could not help but feel sadness when I saw this statistic. This statistic is of course related at least in part to the rising divorce rate in this country. Exact statistics on divorce rate vary depending on the source, but most sources generally agree that up to 50% of all first marriages will end in divorce. It is easy to blame this on poor preparation of our youth for marriage (more on that later) but if you dissect the statistics the divorce rate actually rises to as much as 75% for a third marriage. This suggests that "practice makes perfect" rarely applies to relationships. Understand that I am well aware that there instances of special circumstance that make walking away from a marriage unavoidable and perhaps even the right thing to do. Even so the trend is alarming.
My expertise on marriage is confined to my knowledge on what has made mine work. As a man of faith I grew up with the clear understanding that marriage was intended to last the duration of ones life. Whether or not one shares my faith understanding the marriage is intended to be a lifelong commitment it where it all starts. A solid marriage is not built on emotions, hormones, and other physiological components of attraction. Not that these things are bad, but they are simply the rewards and sometimes consequences of a healthy marriage relationship. Over the years I've had some interesting conversations with my sons regarding "finding the one." My advice has always been (this is the Reader's Digest version) that there is nothing wrong with physical attraction, but in the end they better have a deep friendship with their life partner because that is what the love that solidifies a marriage is base upon. The wonderful benefit that comes from this foundation is that the physical attraction never goes away because your life partner never deviates from perfect.
In my view the number one reason why marriages fail is selfishness. As a spouse I can never evaluate the success of my marriage based on the meeting of my needs. Instead I base the success of my marriage on whether or not I am meeting the needs of my spouse. I can never give with the expectation of getting something back. If both partners pursue their relationship in this way it is pretty easy to see how healthy balance is achieved. Instead of a 50:50 proposition you benefit from a 100:100 proposition. If you owned a business wouldn't you jump all over that? As strange as it sounds in many ways marriage is like a business because it is all about managing resources in such a way that it grows and prospers (you can define resources any way you like). It takes work. You have good times and bad. If you do it well it just gets better and better and less susceptible perturbations. If one or both partners in marriage approaches the relationship selfishly it simply does not work because in my experience selfish people's personal needs are never satisfied. If you want to have a good marriage..get over yourself...and focus on building the partnership so the marriage will endure.
I will conclude by saying that saving the institution of marriage has importance beyond the quality of life for husband and wife. If you look at what is happening to our youth today one would be hard pressed to argue that growing up without a true family is healthy. I could write a lot on this just from my own experience but won't do that today. Suffice to say that there are periods in a child's life where mentoring, by both mother and father, set the course to adulthood. With so many children being raised today by single parents I'm left to wonder if our next generation will be equipped to mentor the generation that follows. Single parents are not necessarily bad people, but as I witnessed with my own mother rarely have the time to make life work and still be a full-time mom or dad.
Cheers
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Life's Elusive Balance
Yesterday afternoon my wife Theo required me to put down my paint brush (been trying to get the trim on my house painted all Summer) and join her for an afternoon of relaxing somewhere with a view. We ended up at Methven Family Vineyards where we (including the dog) sat for a couple hours on their shaded patio which overlooks a lovely vineyard sharing a bottle of their 2007 Reserve Pinot Noir, crackers, and some emmentaler cheese. As much as I resisted giving up one of the few "unscheduled" weekend days I've had to get work done around the house I found our afternoon escape refreshing and a stark reminder of what I have missed from my life the past few years.
About three years I vividly remember standing next to Theo in the kitchen when she informed me that she planned to apply to a Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) program at Mt. Hood Community College (Portland, OR). She was going to change careers. Theo had been a medical laboratory technologist for more than 30 years and had a good paying job at a large oncology practice. However, the culture associated with her work environment had severely soured over the years to the point where she loathed going to work. I could see the stress and dread associated with the job creeping into all aspects of her life. She needed to make a change and I needed to support the move.
Sending Theo back to school was not a trivial venture. The problem with the Mt. Hood program was that it would require Theo to quit working for two years while she completed the program. When I sat down and did the math (i.e. the mortgage for whatever reason wasn't willing to pay itself) it was clear the Mt. Hood program was not going to work. I had been dabbling in hybrid education and thought that perhaps someone out there in cyberspace might offer a hybrid PTA program where Theo good do coursework at home. As it worked out there one such program in the entire country. It was offered through Whatcom Community College in Bellingham, WA. This was really too good to be true because our son Sean was in graduate school at Western Washington University (also in Bellingham). We went up for a visit and Theo actually liked the Whatcom program better than the program at Mt. Hood. Thus began our intense two and a half year venture.
Theo's motivation for our relaxing venture to Methven's patio yesterday was simply to clear her mind because this morning she sits for her national PTA board exam. This marks the end of a journey in which she endured nine quarters of full-time employment and full-time school. It marks the end of my having to carry extra responsibilities so that Theo had the time to be successful at both work and school. Yesterday we had time to dump some stress by intentionally taking down time in a way that we had not done in several years. Our simple excursion made clear just how critical all the walks, McDonald's dates, and other "escapes" were to all aspects of our health. After today we have the opportunity to once again have them as part of our lives.
I was talking to one of the administrators at the university a while back and mentioned to him that our job responsibilities were constantly added to but that I could never recall any responsibilities being taken away. In retrospect it seems as if this is true of life in general. We constantly seem to have "things" added to our lives whether or not it be by choice. In the end the adjustments we most often make result in the reduction of our personal space which will eventually threaten our physical and emotional health, our relationships, and our spiritual lives. When this happens life is no longer in balance. The results of this lack of balance can be seen in the faces of those we encounter each and every day. Reclaiming personal space sometimes involves tough and difficult choices. For Theo it meant leaving a secure, high-paying job. For me it meant cutting administrative responsibilities at the university which became a parasite on my time (another story). I truly believe that the caring service you provide to others whether it be professional or out of compassion is important and necessary. But the effectiveness and motivation for such service will always be tainted and degraded if your own life is in poor repair.
Theo and I have not yet achieved the balance we desire but after today are one step further down the road to getting there. Good luck in your own journey towards that often elusive state.
Cheers
Monday, August 1, 2011
Do Our Schools Really Need "Fixing?"
Over the years it has become clear that kids entering college are far less prepared to tackle rigorous academic work than they were even 10 years ago. Across the country governments at all levels have poked, prodded, and in all manners studied our system of education in hopes of figuring out what is wrong. In the end the "fixes" put in place by random legislation end up doing more harm than good in that they inevitably stifle the creativity of good teachers for the sake of a "plan." In this era of economic downfall when school budgets are getting cut left and right, it is easy blame staffing cutbacks and increased class size for further amplifying the academic decline of our kids.
We as a country have failed to make education a priority. Regardless of what level of education you consider the lack of adequate financial backing is a common theme. In yesterday's Oregonian there was an article describing how competitive athletics in our high schools might be headed on the road to being relegated to club activities where they are totally supported by the participants. Even now the pay-to-play fees being charged many kids likely prevents some from participating. What a shame. Lack of support can also be seen the sizable debt that many or our kids incur when they go to college. We ask them (or their parents) to take on massive loans to pay their freight and expect them to begin painful payments in a time when gaining employment is not a given.
All of what I've said above is true. However, none of what I've said above has anything to do with the real problem with education in this country. I find it interesting that when class sizes are above 30 (particularly in elementary school) some sort of alarm seems to go off. Yet when I look back at my elementary school class photos from the 1960's my class sizes were routinely 33-35 governed by a single teacher. My elementary education was just fine. So, what is the difference. The real problem with education has nothing to do with what or how subjects get taught. Rather it has everything to do with what is happening at home. Over the past few decades we have seen the family structure change in profound ways. First, economics have required that both parents work where when I was in school is was common for kids to have a stay-at-home mom who could not only see that their kids attend to their school assigned tasks but also volunteer time in their kids classrooms on a regular basis. This, in my opinion, is why larger classrooms worked in my day. Today there are far fewer parents that have either the time or inclination to volunteer time in the schools. The second, and perhaps more important change that has occurred is the rapid disintegration of the family unit. The number of kids that live in single-parent homes is historically high. As many as 1 out of every 2 children under the age of 18 will live at some point in a single-family home. Assuming that the attending parent is earning a living at a job then these children are often left to fend for themselves. Further, as much as a single parent would want to help you all know how it feels to come home from work and.......well....work. It usually doesn't work. To make matters worse this problem creates a domino effect that will cause learning to continue to decline for the foreseeable future as were are getting to the point where the current teachers we are producing are less skilled at the basics (reading, writing, and arithmetic) than their predecessors.
Can we fix this problem? We have to otherwise this nation will literally get dumb (some would argue we are there already but I like to see an end to the tunnel where there is light). In my view the key is for the government to stop investing resources into controlling how teachers teach and instead invest resources into supports for the kids themselves. Single-parent homes where kids typically get minimal support are not going away so we must adjust. It is impossible to totally replace a parent (I grew up without a dad and can tell you it was my loss) but I do believe we can construct creative programs that encourage kids to study and prepare for success in higher education. This is really a must because pretty much all kids are being pushed into college whether or not they truly belong there. If the focus of resources is shifted from building teaching plans to providing academic support for the kids then the kids get help and the teachers are loosed to do what they do best emphasizing their creativity and strengths. It is that simple.
Cheers
We as a country have failed to make education a priority. Regardless of what level of education you consider the lack of adequate financial backing is a common theme. In yesterday's Oregonian there was an article describing how competitive athletics in our high schools might be headed on the road to being relegated to club activities where they are totally supported by the participants. Even now the pay-to-play fees being charged many kids likely prevents some from participating. What a shame. Lack of support can also be seen the sizable debt that many or our kids incur when they go to college. We ask them (or their parents) to take on massive loans to pay their freight and expect them to begin painful payments in a time when gaining employment is not a given.
All of what I've said above is true. However, none of what I've said above has anything to do with the real problem with education in this country. I find it interesting that when class sizes are above 30 (particularly in elementary school) some sort of alarm seems to go off. Yet when I look back at my elementary school class photos from the 1960's my class sizes were routinely 33-35 governed by a single teacher. My elementary education was just fine. So, what is the difference. The real problem with education has nothing to do with what or how subjects get taught. Rather it has everything to do with what is happening at home. Over the past few decades we have seen the family structure change in profound ways. First, economics have required that both parents work where when I was in school is was common for kids to have a stay-at-home mom who could not only see that their kids attend to their school assigned tasks but also volunteer time in their kids classrooms on a regular basis. This, in my opinion, is why larger classrooms worked in my day. Today there are far fewer parents that have either the time or inclination to volunteer time in the schools. The second, and perhaps more important change that has occurred is the rapid disintegration of the family unit. The number of kids that live in single-parent homes is historically high. As many as 1 out of every 2 children under the age of 18 will live at some point in a single-family home. Assuming that the attending parent is earning a living at a job then these children are often left to fend for themselves. Further, as much as a single parent would want to help you all know how it feels to come home from work and.......well....work. It usually doesn't work. To make matters worse this problem creates a domino effect that will cause learning to continue to decline for the foreseeable future as were are getting to the point where the current teachers we are producing are less skilled at the basics (reading, writing, and arithmetic) than their predecessors.
Can we fix this problem? We have to otherwise this nation will literally get dumb (some would argue we are there already but I like to see an end to the tunnel where there is light). In my view the key is for the government to stop investing resources into controlling how teachers teach and instead invest resources into supports for the kids themselves. Single-parent homes where kids typically get minimal support are not going away so we must adjust. It is impossible to totally replace a parent (I grew up without a dad and can tell you it was my loss) but I do believe we can construct creative programs that encourage kids to study and prepare for success in higher education. This is really a must because pretty much all kids are being pushed into college whether or not they truly belong there. If the focus of resources is shifted from building teaching plans to providing academic support for the kids then the kids get help and the teachers are loosed to do what they do best emphasizing their creativity and strengths. It is that simple.
Cheers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)