This is something I think about a lot. I’ve been working with with student-level data for 23 years now. And talking about stuff for longer. There is something uniquely frustrating about conversations in which the person I am talking with does two things: using terms casually and presuming they convey specific meanings.

It drives me crazy because I tend towards the specific when I talk data. Or most other things. Especially if I am talking to someone who I think is supposed to be equally knowledgeable.

Frustrating, and representative of a larger problem. Meaning and bias.

Without going into too much detail, it is kind of difficult to explain well, so bear with me.

When we collect data at the state level, the data are much removed from reality. Institutions collect data for the purpose of running the enterprise. Some pieces they collect because we require it, but there really very few examples of that. Since most data are collected for their purposes, they define the manner of collection that fits their needs best – or as best fits the design of their administrative system.

At this level, we are talking already of two or three levels of abstraction from the original students the data represent. Further, the data are biased according to the definitions used by the institution. Some of these are based on local standards, some on national standards, some simply represent standards implemented by the software vendor.

Since we collect from public and private institutions, two-year and four-year, we impose additional standards and abstractions on the data. This is necessary in order for us to use the data and assure some cleanliness to it (we have thousands of edits in the collection system). However, this adds additional abstraction to the data.

Don’t mistake me, the data are still quite usable. They are simply usable only within realistic limits and are best used for descriptive and trend analyses.

Additional abstraction comes into play in other ways when external taxonomies are applied, such as the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP). Just because something has the same name, that does mean it is the same thing. Sometimes differences are minor, but not always. And of course, sometimes it is just a dead horse being beaten.

Strangeness occurs when taxonomies are linked to taxonomies to taxonomies.

In a completely different dataset I have been working with very recently, I find that a column represents both a desired outcome and qualifying characteristic. Neat trick, huh? The values for that column are based on a crosswalk between two taxonomies (one of which is based on a third). Simply speaking, if there is a one-to-one correspondence, this should not be a problem. However, what if the relationship is one-to-many or, worse yet, many-to-many? Or even worser what if the original value crosswalked for the individual in question is one of multiple options? This provides multiple many-to-many outcomes, yet somehow  the file is produced with only one outcome.

This may be fine and perfectly correct….but how do I know? At this point I can’t even guess how much of this result is based solely on computing algorithm or individual choice in the selection.

It’s kind of crazy.

A week or so ago, someone tweeted the point that algorithms are not unbiased. I’m sorry I don’t remember who it was, or the exact words. The fact is though, algorithms are not unbiased. Some human or three wrote the algorithm and there is every possibility that their biases are reflected in the algorithm – or in how it is used.

So, I guess what I am trying to say is this. The data I work with are as limited as they are powerful. The most important thing they tell us is where to start investigating with less abstract data.

There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch – TANSTAAFL

When I talk about TANSTAAFL, I am generally referring to the reality of costs, not the social construct the Heinlein described in many of his stories. Society has simply gotten too complex, with far too many structural inequalities not to have a safety net. Instead, I use a TANSTAAFL as a reminder that everything has a price, everything has to be paid for, that you simply can’t get something for nothing. This is even natural law, described by the laws of thermodynamics.

I read something like this excellent blog post  and I am reminded again of TANSTAAFL and the potential costs of Big Data and analytics. When faced with large numbers of people to sort and choose, it makes sense to use screening tools to reduce costs. It’s that you simply can’t get something for nothing. There are trade-offs, some of which are not apparent, some of which have societal impacts. One of these is reliance on math scores for rankings and admission decisions.

I like math and use it heavily most every day. But that is me. Not everyone uses more than arithmetic. This includes a lot of college graduates….and non-graduates that are forced into a college algebra track as preparation for calculus. Non-graduates who are non-graduates in part because of that match track. There is a growing body of support for the idea that students not going into STEM fields need college algebra, let alone calculus, and thus statistics or business math is a better option. Given the continued use and misuse of statistics in the media (and as poor justification for such blog posts as Peter Greene takes on), statistics seems a much better choice.

I am confused though, probably because I don’t have enough data to know whether or not our college graduates score better in math than other countries. On the other hand, I feel pretty confident that our graduation rates would improve if we re-thought our approach to college math. This is a core strategy of the Complete College America Kool-Aid. Thinking back to my time as a math tutor for non-traditional students, I can’t help but think this to be something to consider.

Of course, such a change might have other consequences. We could lose students to that pathway that we really want or need to be exposed to more advanced math. There are other potential costs, I am sure, including the cost of designing the curricula. There (simply) ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

I could go on, but it is time for the best news show ever – Last Week Tonight.

Uh-huh, 85 comments about parking; 57 comments about a “more nuanced Bill Gates” and 26 comments on a suggested reading list for Mr. Gates.

Parking still wins 85-83.

For those that may question my suggestion in the last post of “The Once and Future King” as appropriate reading material for Bill Gates, I offer the following:

1) If one can’t defend the liberal arts (and sciences) with liberal arts reading, we should probably give up trying.

2) I’m afraid that Gates, and most others, would overlook the simple and practical lessons about education and life in “The Jungle Books” by Rudyard Kipling.

3) The same folks are likely to miss the point of suggesting Richard Adams’ “Shardik.”

So, while you are perhaps dismayed by my cavalier attitude and dismissal of your ability to comprehend my thinking, I offer this: the current approaches intended to disrupt and improve education are the equivalent of a one-legged man auditioning for the role of Tarzan. By the way, I was called out by my teachers, many, many times for disrupting the education process, and not once did anyone seem to imply that it was a good thing. Just as it takes more than a copy of Easy Rider to be a rebel, it takes more than well-intentioned, well-designed technology to replace, let alone improve upon, high-touch teaching and learning.

Although, I am not a teacher/professor/instructor, so I should probably stay out of the debate about what is good teaching and the appropriate role of technology. I should stick to counting things and analyzing the process and outcomes.

I note tonight that 50 of Virginia’s college and university presidents, public and private, have signed a letter of concern to Secretary Duncan and Virginia’s congressional delegation. I welcome them to the party. I haven’t seen the letter, but this quoted in the article:

“In our judgment, it would be a serious error for students to receive a message that their success in life is evaluated solely, or even primarily, by their earnings, and especially so in the period shortly after earning their degrees.”

Well, not even I think that aspect is about evaluating student success in life, as far as PIRS is concerned. How about ability to repay their loans? Have a family? It is hard to live and enjoy the life of the mind if you spend so much time working to just get by that you never have time to think.

Fortunately, we in Virginia are not limited to short-term wage outcomes. We are about to publicly release data out to  19 years (and shortly after that, 20 years since we just got the data for 2013). I presented the preliminary report to Council on Monday.

Sometimes, the higher education community amazes me. In a good way.

But not today.

This morning, as I occasionally do, only today was much later than usual, I sent out a list of articles for colleagues to at least be aware of. This snippet was part of that:

And…it is 10:35 am EDT and this article has received 36 comments already:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/07/23/rockstar-parking-heavily-subsidized-and-often-lucky-about-get-more-expensive-college

To this point, yesterday’s article on a more nuanced Bill Gates has received only 47 comments….. I am not sure I need say anything more about the values of the readers of InsideHigherEd

There was also a blog post from John Warner about a recommended reading list for Mr. Gates to become better informed about higher education.

It is now 9:48 pm and Warner’s post has received 18 comments, primarily reading suggestions. The parking article is now up to 73. This tells me that if Gates wants higher education to support the Common Core, all he has to do is buy parking spaces for every faculty, staff, and administrator. However, if  indeed the average cost of a parking space is $18,000, that is roughly $72B to cover four million college and university employees. I’m sure he could get a deal to buy existing spaces for a small fraction though.

I’m sure few people think that Gates care what us higher ed folk think about him and what he knows. I suspect though, that if enough people make a point of commenting on a regular basis, word will get to him.

So, I have a reading suggestion. I made it to Warner, but I don’t think he took me seriously. Few enough people do so. My suggestion is T.H. White’s, The Once and Future King.  It was my first reaction to Warner’s tweet for suggestions and 30 hours later I stand by it. To me the story has always been primarily the education of boy and king. Education is about observation, experience, gaining knowledge, and translating those things into understanding and the ability to improve one’s condition. With Merlin’s guidance, Arthur learns that Might does not make Right and that even as king, and to the end of life, Arthur was still learning.

“He would go to war, if King Uther declared one. Do you know that Homo sapiens is almost
the only animal which wages war?”

“Ants do.”

“Don’t say ‘Ants do’ in that sweeping way, dear boy. There are more than four thousand
different sorts of them, and from all those kinds I can only think of five which are belligerent.
There are the five ants, one termite that I know of, and Man.”

“But the packs of wolves from the Forest Sauvage attack our flocks of sheep every winter.”

“Wolves and sheep belong to different species, my friend. True warfare is what happens
between bands of the same species. Out of the hundreds of thousands of species, I can only
think of seven which are belligerent. Even Man has a few varieties like the Esquimaux and
the Gypsies and the Lapps and certain Nomads in Arabia, who do not do it, because they do
not claim boundaries. True warfare is rarer in Nature than cannibalism. Don’t you think that is
a little unfortunate?”

“Personally,” said the Wart, “I should have liked to go to war, if I could have been made a
knight. I should have liked the banners and the trumpets, the flashing armour and the glorious
charges. And oh, I should have liked to do great deeds, and be brave, and conquer my own
fears. Don’t you have courage in warfare, Badger, and endurance, and comrades whom you
love?”

The learned animal thought for a long time, gazing into the fire.

In the end, he seemed to change the subject.

“Which did you like best,” he asked, “the ants or the wild geese?”

****

Sisters, mothers, grandmothers: everything was rooted in the past! Actions of any sort in one
generation might have incalculable consequences in another, so that merely to sneeze was a
pebble thrown into a pond, whose circles might lap the furthest shores. It seemed as if the
only hope was not to act at all, to draw no swords for anything, to hold oneself still, like a
pebble not thrown. But that would be hateful.

What was Right, what was Wrong? What distinguished Doing from Not Doing? If I were to
have my time again, the old King thought, I would bury myself in a monastery, for fear of a
Doing which might lead to woe.

****

“Listen, then. Sit for a minute and I will tell you a story. I am a very old man, Tom, and you
are young. When you are old, you will be able to tell what I have told tonight, and I want you
to do that. Do you understand this want?”

“Yes, sir. I think so.”

“Put it like this. There was a king once, called King Arthur. That is me. When he came to the
throne of England, he found that all the kings and barons were fighting against each other like
madmen, and, as they could afford to fight in expensive suits of armour, there was practically
nothing which could stop them from doing what they pleased. They did a lot of bad things,
because they lived by force. Now this king had an idea, and the idea was that force ought to
be used, if it were used at all, on behalf of justice, not on its own account. Follow this, young
boy. He thought that if he could get his barons fighting for truth, and to help weak people,
and to redress wrongs, then their fighting might not be such a bad thing as once it used to be.
So he gathered together all the true and kindly people that he knew, and he dressed them in
armour, and he made them knights, and taught them his idea, and set them down, at a Round
Table. There were a hundred and fifty of them in the happy days, and King Arthur loved his
Table with all his heart. He was prouder of it than he was of his own dear wife, and for many
years his new knights went about killing ogres, and rescuing damsels and saving poor
prisoners, and trying to set the world to rights. That was the King’s idea.”

“I think it was a good idea, my lord.”

“It was, and it was not. God knows.”

“What happened to the King in the end?” asked the child, when the story seemed to have
dried up.

“For some reason, things went wrong. The Table split into factions, a bitter war began, and
all were killed.”

The boy interrupted confidently. “No,” he said, “not all. The King won. We shall win.”

Arthur smiled vaguely and shook bis head. He would have nothing but the truth.

****

Arthur learned too late the folly of easy answers. Chivalry, a common core of standards for behavior, was not enough, was never going to be enough. If White had written this today, perhaps the quest for the Grail would have been a quest for better standards. As for Arthur, if he had perhaps loved his people more than he loved his idea, things would have turned out okay in the end.

For me, I suspect I will never forget the badger’s question and the answer will always be “the wild geese.”

A conversation started this morning with John Warner (@biblioracle) about remediation, learning, standards, and writing.

I keep thinking about this exchange, in part because my morning involved a heart-to-heart discussion with the oldest (12) grandelf about the necessity of learning to accept feedback and criticism as part of learning. And that this never really stops, or at least it shouldn’t.

I struggle with what I sometimes consider a lack of feedback (certain amount of insecurity revealed in that statement, I know). I don’t have a lot of people tell me “you really should do/say it this way” or “this should change” etc. I do get the occasional “you do good work” or referred to as the “data guru,” which are very much appreciated but don’t tell me much. I also don’t get much feedback on this or the other blog, but I get enough to keep on keeping on.

So, the feedback I rely on, work-wise, falls into four categories:

1. My employment agreement gets renewed each year. I’m on an annual agreement and they don’t have to keep me around if I get too obnoxious, troublesome, or produce poor work. (This is really important to me – I like working.)
2. People keep asking me to do stuff. There are some that are getting a bit carried away with this, but if they value my work enough to ask me to do it, that is valuable feedback.
3. Institutional leaders use my work to support their arguments even when my work is not strictly flattering of their institution. (I am always watching for any citation of SCHEV Research data.)
4. Legislators push bills that either require me(us) to do something, or that others use my(our) work.

Of course, I am looking what I have just written and thinking, “Didn’t this really start as a conversation about feedback in writing, you know, communication?”

Uhh, yes. But that is what I do. It just happens to be predominantly numerically-based. I’ve always thought of what I do as essentially an art form because of the Web. Until now, I don’t think I have really thought of it as primarily communication. (Sorry, Dad!) Many times over the last 23 years I have described institutional research as a process of teaching people to count to one. That is the foundational practice, but it certainly doesn’t end there because we have to communicate not only the meaning of one, but all the stories and meanings of the stories of every sum and difference of one. (If you have never seen it, The Story of 1 is a nice little documentary.)

So I am wondering how we teach young people what feedback is, how to recognize it, and how to respond to it. Probably need to teach the difference between good and bad feedback. We need to also model this behavior, because I don’t think everyone is.

Some things are just irksome. Tiny, piddly, little things. But they are often things that matter in a bigger way than is readily apparent.

I just finished posting on my work blog to provide guidance to institutions struggling with a very minor change in the data system USED uses to handle Title IV loan originations/disbursements. As of this spring, all students are required to have a valid CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs) Code for their program. Makes sense. However, what to do about students with an undeclared major? Certainly they should not be in a program, should they?

USED says yes. Further, they advise institutions to use 24.0102 General Studies (An undifferentiated program that includes instruction in the general arts, general science, or unstructured studies) because it comes equipped with Illustrative Examples of “Undeclared Major” and “Undecided.”

Fine. I have problems with the logic and whether or not this is accurate for all students to which the code might be applied, but okay, I can see how they got there.

However.

How will the Department differentiate these students who are undeclared from students who are in actual General Studies degree programs? Virginia has 23 such programs at public and nonprofit colleges.

Um, they won’t and they can’t.  (By the way, this conflict arises in Virginia, and apparently only in Virginia, in that we use 90.0000 to report undeclared students to us. Everyone keeps telling me that only Virginia institutions are having trouble with this.)

How good will the data be when some yahoo tries to build a Gainful Employment equivalent for all programs when the enrollment and default rates and who knows what other data all get confused for the actual programs and the undeclared students (who are not in a program, by definition).

At the base of the academic structure is the academic program. USED does not seem to understand to this. Nor do they appear to be thinking ahead about their Title IV data collection and how is might will be used.

Disappointing.

Yesterday, my son and I hauled the kayaks over to Kiptopeke State Park on Virginia’s Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. It is one of my favorite spots. Not because of the fishing – rarely have we done well – but just because it is a great little oasis. Just three miles from the tip of the peninsula, the park is located at the old ferry terminus that went across the mouth of the bay.

When we pulled in, the temperature was just about 80F with a north wind blowing at about 11 knots. We surveyed the conditions and crowd on the pier to see if folks were pulling fish up, and saw none. We decided not to head out to the grounded fleet of concrete ships right away with the chop and the wind after watching one kayaker working pretty hard to fish the ships. Instead, we launched and fished the shallower areas south of the pier where it was a bit calmer. This was about three hours before high tide.

Once we got into position, we were getting hits right away. Not much in the way of connections, until Zach landed a 20 inch flounder. But that remained the only fish for a while. There were enough hits though to keep things interesting. Both of us were working two rods – one with minnows, one with clam or shrimp. The latter options were generating the action.

We beached about an hour after high tide to stretch and fish from the sand. Sometimes we get a bit obsessive and will stay in the yaks for five or six hours without a break. Our record is seven. I was feeling the sun pretty well at this point and starting notice the stiffness in my shoulders that would be settling in later that night. The wind had remained pretty stiff and it was work maintaining position and despite that work, we were a good half-mile from the end of the pier.

We talked over our strategy and decided to check out the conditions around the ships, With luck, the might break a little of the wind.

We noticed about the half the way over the wind was slackening. This was great! We headed to the far north end of the concrete fleet dropped lines and started fishing, drifting up close to the hulls each ship. Zach pulled up a nice spot on the first cast. We spent the next couple of hours in near perfect conditions as the wind dropped completely. The bite was inconsistent, mainly a lot of oyster toads, including some that were quite large. Conditions had relaxed so much that I would occasionally look back and see Zach laying back and dozing, responding only to the occasional bite.  When we finished the northern group of ships, we drifted to the second group and fished until we realized the tide had fully turned and was now pulling us on to the ocean faster than the wind had. So, a few more casts.

Unfortunately I was rigged only for bottom fishing because I looked east toward the ramp, and I saw a heavy body, with a red-tinge, roll about 60 yards away. A big red drum had been cruising the area and that was the only look I got.

Overall, it was day that couldn’t really be improved. Sure, we could have caught more fish, but just getting out with my son was good enough. Easy drive over, relatively easy drive back. No problems, no issues. Just a great day. And the continuing of a “tradition” that started many years ago and continued through years of scouting – I drive back and he sleeps.

It was also pleasant to be totally disconnected from the world outside of what I could see and here. Phone locked away in the car and spending thought capacity on what I was doing at the moment. Not worrying about higher education. Not worried about the current projects, or the next projects. Not worried about Twitter.

It was good. As good as good can be.

On my solo road-trip to Orlando today for AIR Forum 2014, it occurred to me that people are still not thinking about the ratings system (PIRS) and gainful employment (GE) the way I am.

I am not convinced that PIRS is a real thing. Certainly the Department has spent a lot of time and effort to create something, including the illusion that PIRS is real.

Why? Because both GE and PIRS attempt to do the same thing – eliminate bad actors and low performing programs/institutions from Title  IV eligibility. Since we don’t have details on PIRS, the only difference we can really point to is that GE is about disqualifying programs and PIRS is about disqualifying institutions.

So, if you are a member of Congress or congressional staff working on the reauthorization of the higher education act, are you going to pick one or both? Given the nature of the lobbying and letters of support and opposition you might receive, would you consider combing the two? Especially in light of the argument that GE should apply to all programs.

If you were a lobbyist and became convinced that something would be done, would you grudgingly support program-level effects v. institution-level? Especially if student preparation is factored in to the mix with other measures than earnings and debt repayment?

Do policy-makers and law-makers want two different consumer ratings system that accomplish essentially the same thing? To me, two ratings seems to add more confusion than helping students and family.

The cynic in me wonders if PIRS is simply a way to justify GE for all programs as a reasonable compromise.

In her continuing discussions on her F2CO (Free 2 year College Option) Sara Goldrick-Rab writes about the randomness of the 12th year v. the 14th year of public education. This is a pretty compelling set of points since it forces one to confront the current status quo of public education. There are lot of things we do in education, especially in higher education, because we have always done them that way. There is absolutely nothing magical about 12 years or 13 years (if you include kindergarten) being the right amount of elementary and secondary education. After all, it is not as if founding fathers had done a lot of research a hundred years ago or so on how many years were right, it all kind of evolved that way.

This is probably true for the legal status of 18 year-olds and other such boundaries. Young people are getting driver’s licenses later and later, in part because of changing laws requiring more practice and additional rules. I think most people, especially the insurance industry, think this is a good thing. It is likely time that we really begin to question why things are the way they are and whether or not they should remain that way.

On the flip-side, Sherman Dorn takes on Arne Duncan’s comments on the contents of teacher preparation. I’m not going to say much of anything other than that is well worth reading. Being married to a special ed teacher for 25 years combined with being involved in state-level teacher prep program discussions causes a great deal of what he writes to resonate with me.

And over at Curmudgucation, Peter Greene takes apart the essay Dan Greenstein and Vicki Phillips had published in InsideHigherEd that attempts to encourage higher ed faculty to cheer-lead for the Common Core of State Standards. This is also a really nice piece.

Of course, none of this was really what I was planning to write about.

I spent the last five days on a whirlwind drive from Richmond, Va to Joplin, Mo. I wrote some about this on my work blog, focusing on the fact there are a lot of colleges and universities between those two points. I drove home to Joplin for a visit with my parents the weekend before my father’s 82nd birthday. It also happened to be the weekend that Missouri Southern State University was finally able to get around to acknowledging the 25 year service of a former president, Julio Leon. During the reign of the most recent president, Julio was essentially He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. The current interim president, a seemingly very capable Alan Marble, felt the pain of the campus community and has been working on healing and care-taking.

A few things stand out about the experience.

• During the course of a celebrating the career of a visionary leader, it is seemingly easy to leave out the times that people grumbled. I would have enjoyed hearing stories along those lines as well. Especially since I recall some of the grumbling.
• It is gratifying to hear a tenured professor remind us that it is not really about the individual nearly so much as it is about the institution. And still receive a warm hug from the honoree.
• I enjoy seeing my old professors (and apparently my high school counselor), but it seems difficult, if not impossible, to over-emphasize the word “old.” I felt really young.
• The last time I was on campus was in December 2012 when I was the Commencement speaker under the old regime. There is a different, more positive, atmosphere.
• Some places will always be a second home. Dad spent a lot of years there. I grew up a bit there and finally finished an art degree. My sister graduated from MSSU. It is a good place with as a bright a future as the campus community can envision. Should it wish to do so.
• Some people just don’t know how to set up a room.
• People without hearing impairments should learn to be aware that they are surrounded by the hearing impaired at such events. And structure the set-up accordingly.

The damage to the international mission of the university, and the attempts to end it completely, were shameful. The belief that a global perspective was necessary, and possible, in Southwest Missouri was, and is, an audacious vision that Dad and Julio made reality for years. Tied to core beliefs in the liberal arts and human communication, it is a shining example of what public higher education can be.

MSSU is not perfect. There are needs to continue to come to grips with the university’s recent history. MSSU needs to develop better ties to the Joplin and surrounding communities.

Despite these issues, it sure was a good place to grow up.

…you most assuredly are not.

I was standing in line at the grocery store last night. The young male clerk was chatting up (unsuccessfully) the slightly older young woman ahead of me. And that is when he said it. 

“I think I am cool.”

Throughout the rest of my wait and my transaction, I debated telling him the truth. One is either cool or not. Just saying you think you are cool is evidence to the contrary. It is something that is self-evident to others.

This applies to qualities of personality and existence beyond coolness. Spirituality. Bravery. Wisdom.

I left without saying anything about it. In part, it is not my place to disabuse him of his notion. Sooner or later he will more than likely learn the hard way. Also, having spent chunks of my life in Oklahoma, Missouri, Virginia, Oregon, and Alaska, I’ve learned not to argue with the weather. Or fence posts, crazy people, animals, and inanimate objects of all shapes and sizes. 

Arguing with any of the above is pointless and makes you look foolish. Certainly one of the problems I have had in life is recognizing when someone is actually a fence post.

`You got everything?’ said the chauffeur. `You don’t want to pick up your bag or anything?’

`If there’s one thing that life’s taught me,’ said Tricia, `it’s never go back for your bag.’

Just a little over an hour later, Tricia sat on one of the pair of beds in her hotel room. For a few minutes she didn’t move. She just stared at her bag, which was sitting innocently on top of the other bed.

In her hand was a note from Gail Andrews, saying, `Don’t be too disappointed. Do ring if you want to talk about it. If I were you I’d stay in at home tomorrow night. Get some rest. But don’t mind me, and don’t worry. It’s only astrology. It’s not the end of the world. Gail.’

The chauffeur had been dead right. In fact the chauffeur seemed to know more about what was going on inside NBS than any other single person she had encountered in the organisation. Martin had been keen, Zwingler had not. She had had her one shot at proving Martin right and she had blown it.

Oh well. Oh well, oh well, oh well.

Time to go home. Time to phone the airline and see if she could still get the red-eye back to Heathrow. tonight. She reached for the big phone directory.

Oh. First things first.

She put down the directory again, picked up her handbag, and took it through to the bathroom. She put it down and took out the small plastic case which held her contact lenses, without which she had been unable properly to read either the script or the autocue.

As she dabbed each tiny plastic cup into her eyes she reflected that if there was one thing life had taught her it was that there are times when you do not go back for your bag and other times when you do. It had yet to teach her to distinguish between the two types of occasion.

—Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless

Learning to distinguish between a real person and a person that is really a fence post (if only on some issues) is the real trick.