A few months ago, I registered for a researchED conference, to be held in Melbourne next week. I am sceptical of researchED, but I am also genuinely curious to know what these guys are about. It seems I’m not gonna find out.
Today, I got a call from one of the conference organisers, to “discuss” my registration. She queried the email address I provided, which made no sense, and then denied querying it, but we soon got to her “concern”: when registering for the conference, I had given my “company name” as assholesRUS.
It very quickly became clear that the person had zero interest in “discussing” my registration, and that she was simply calling to notify me that my registration would be cancelled. I tried to explain that the company name was simply a (self-deprecating) joke, and if she cares about it, just delete it. I tried to explain that, however I may joke about filling in meaningless form entries, I am always polite in person, and extra-polite when in the role of guest. But she did not care. She had no interest in simply deleting the (self-deprecating) joke. She also had no interest in how I might or might not behave at the conference. She did not express suspicion that, whatever I might say on the phone, that I was not to be trusted, which would have been plausible, if misguided. She disapproved of my joke and that was that.
As the person put it, I “clearly do not align with our values”. Which, to be fair, is probably true. I think I just don’t have the values to be part of a self-aggrandizing cult of humourless and sanctimonious tossers.
Marty, I enjoy your articles and I also find researchED professionally enriching. Both sources enhance my practice and enjoyment of teaching. Please do not tarnish all of us that are interested in evidence based instruction with the same brush that you have (perhaps fairly) painted your Haileybury correspondent. I would like to remain in both audiences and continue to enjoy their considerable overlap.
Please do not be “Anonymous”. Choose a name.
What happened today was offensive and insane. If someone wants to try to convince me that I shouldn’t tar all of researchED with the same brush, I’m all ears.
‘anon’ wasn’t intentional…just missed the box.
I would have thought the burden of proof was with you for this outrageous extrapolation. You spoke to an administrator. That’s quite narrow minded of you, Marty.
It’s researchED’s conference. I look forward to any aknowledgement from any of the always mouthy researchED mouthpieces that what happened today was utterly insane.
and doubtless it was, but it’s worth remembering that you will have readers that are also researchED participants (like me) that may find your conclusions offensive.
Oh for fuck’s sake, Peter. Don’t be ridiculous.
A researchED conference organisation just treated me like dirt. When I hear a fucking word of sanity from *anyone* who somehow represents researchED then I’ll lower the tone. Until then, fuck researchED, and don’t even think of sermonising to me about offensiveness.
your blog, so I guess you can say what you like…I don’t have to read it. A shame, because I have learned much from your writing, and have been greatly entertained. But this is silly – you are now swearing at me.
You know the blog. I am very tolerant of people disagreeing with me and having a go at me. But what happened today was disgusting, and I am in no mood to be lectured to. Stop excusing these people.
I am not surprised at your outcome, Marty. It seems that society in general is leaning towards not wanting to hear views other than supportive ones. A binary system which doesn’t notice the numbers existing between 0 and 1.
This is stupider than that. It’s not even about views. I was not scheduled to speak at the conference, and I wasn’t to be representing the conference, or anyone else, in any manner. It was simply that I didn’t exhibit the professional finery, in one line visible to no one but the conference organisers. I thought researchED was supposed to be the substance guys, but it would appear not: they’re apparently as enamoured with form and stature as all establishment clowns.
This is even nastier and stupider than the MAV business. For all their stupidity under Saffin, and now Bowden, for many years the MAV tolerated, and actively appreciated, my sacrilegious manner, with much much more reason to be nervous or grumpy than researchED.
As it stands, researchED is lower in my estimation than the MAV. That is one hell of an achievement.
And what happens if you turn up anyway, or get another ticket somehow?
I wouldn’t do that, of course. Unlike private school bullies, I have a sense of propriety.
I will second Gerard’s comment and suggest that in education, private schools more than government schools, the “leaning” has gone well beyond. Possibly to the point of no return.
I would be happy if there were no return for this private school.
They didn’t cancel you over values, they cancelled you because a single joke on a form was enough to rattle them. That isn’t principle; it’s the thin-skinned insecurity of people who mistake humourlessness for seriousness.
Well done on being cancelled for the crime of not taking them quite as seriously as they take themselves.
Thank you.
Was this comment written by AI? The first two sentences employ antithesis, especially with the second sentence with the “It’s not X, it’s Y” hallmark of LLM writing. “thin-skinned insecurity of people who mistake humourlessness for seriousness” also sounds somewhat unnatural. The last sentence also sounds sycophantic as well, which LLMs are known for. Well, the first two sentences also seem sort of sycophantic as well – it doesn’t feel like how someone would criticise someone while supporting someone else. All three sentences have some sign of AI writing and it doesn’t seem very plausible to me that a human could’ve written a comment in that manner.
This is what I believe – this comment was written by AI but then modified before posting. Normally LLM writing would have American spelling such as “canceled” or “humorlessness” but instead it’s spelt like in Australian English. The semicolon might have also replaced an em dash which is/was a big red flag for AI writing (I believe many new LLMs are being trained not do to this anymore) but I know many people naturally use semicolons or em dashes in writing including me, so this semicolon isn’t a telltale sign for AI writing.
My guess is your wrong, but Mrs. Brightside (or her AI companion) can answer you if she (it) wishes.
The expensive private schools are going corporate – https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/08/the-expensive-illness-in-australias-elite-schools/ That is undeniable. I presume that since Haileybury’s brand is behind this ResearchED, they are doing what any corporate would.
This is not about one clown or one clown school. This idiot buck stops with researchED until someone convinces me otherwise.
I know you’re not fishing, Marty, but it’s their loss. Come and give a talk in SA!
Invite me. I’ll come. (And thank you.)
You should have told her ASSHOLESRUS is a legit organisation and an acronym for: Academics Solemnly Scrutinising Humourless Organisers who Lecture on Evidence while Sacrificing it – ResearchED Unit of Sanctimony
I like that very much. (And am honoured to have Halle Berry visit my blog.)
I just watched a video
featuring Anna Stokke who is the keynote speaker at this conference. It seems she is one of the sensible ones: students must be specifically taught, must learn times tables, must work without calculators, tests are helpful, the “standard algorithms” for computing with numbers are central, maths anxiety is a myth. And she is able to debunk the claims that such attitudes are harmful, having actually read the so called research that started these claims.
Not sure what researchED is. It seems to pop up around the world.
Tom, I hate the posting of videos.
This has nothing to do with Stokke, for whom I have some time.
Getting curious about researchED, I thought I would attend. But the conference is sold out. Either that, or I am on their list with Marty.
I was genuinely looking forward to it. I wanted to meet Stokke.
My goodness, Marty, you do like to skate close to the edge! However, it is worth paying attention again to the exchange with Peter (aka Anonymous), especially his final comment. There is a line between lively and offensiveness that you seem increasingly prone to cross and I think it does not add value to your comments — but, hey, it’s your blog!
I think that you should have been allowed into the conference, but you should know that a sense of humour is not often associated with such functionaries. I actually went to a ResearchED meeting, but it was a long, long time ago, and found it worthwhile; the value is not so much in the presentations but the opportunity to schmooze with some interesting people. However, I do not see it having a serious impact on the larger educational scene with a lot of people in their own ideological silos.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
No.
I am sad that you won’t be meeting Anna Stokke. I think you would like each other a lot. Maybe she’s doing some other events. She now has some kind of role at La Trobe so she will visit often.
I was not aware of this decision until you emailed me about it. I then contacted Haileybury and they told me what they had done and why. I am notionally in charge of researchED in Australia, but it is highly decentralised. I insist on some specifics and I review the speaker submissions, but I do not have, nor do I want, the capacity to manage every aspect of each conference. Hosts run all the ticketing. For example, I asked for ten tickets for teachers from Clarendon to attend which we intended to pay for. I was refused because Haileybury have chosen to run it in a small venue and were worried about having enough tickets available for their own staff. So much for being the big cheese.
Should I have been consulted on this decision or, at least, warned? That’s something I am still thinking about because this has never happened before. I am also wondering how the events team at Clarendon would feel if they received such a submission and what we would do. It is not an ‘insane’ or ‘disgusting’ decision and none of this would have happened had you chosen not to push at boundaries. All you had to do was write ‘none’ in the organisation field and you would still be seeing Stokke. Take some responsibility.
Try seeing this from a normie perspective.
I have no reason to doubt your account that ‘AssholesRUS’ was intended as a self-deprecating joke, but it could just as easily be read as an expression of contempt for the conference and the organisers. If they were then to Google your name and find this blog, they may wonder what they are in for. They are not your readers. They don’t know you. They haven’t met you. They don’t realise what you are like in real life and that this is all a bit of an act. And they have the right to decide who enters their campus.
Anyway, swear at me like you did at Peter or whatever.
Greg, I appreciate your response here, although your pondering of the incident ignores entirely very pertinent facts, which I have clearly spelled out, and you have also declined to indicate your email response to me.
I won’t swear at you. But it would appear that you cannot see, accepting my version for the purposes, that what happened was disgusting and insane, and I don’t know what to say to get you to see that. The incident was simple and it was appalling.
I will write more later.
The strangest part of this comment is the opening paragraph. “I am sad that you won’t be meeting Anna Stokke… Maybe she’s doing some other events… she will visit often” makes Anna Stokke sound like a visiting celebrity to whom researchED controls access, rather than another professional whom Marty could presumably just contact directly if they wanted to meet.
There’s something oddly paternalistic about framing exclusion from a conference as “sad, now you won’t get to meet this important person”, particularly immediately before telling Marty to “take some responsibility” and “try seeing this from a normie perspective”.
Haileybury is of course entitled to decide who enters its campus. But that doesn’t mean everyone else has to regard attendance at researchED (or access to its speakers) as some special privilege bestowed by the organisers. Nor does finding the decision disproportionate require believing Haileybury had no right to make it.
And “all you had to do was write ‘none’” rather misses the point. If putting a facetious organisation name on a registration form is sufficient to have a paid ticket cancelled, then surely people are entitled to think that response was excessive, even while accepting the organiser’s legal right to do it.
The combination of “I’m sad you won’t get to meet Anna”, “take some responsibility”, and “try seeing this from a normie perspective” comes across less as an explanation and more as a telling-off. I suspect that tone is a large part of why people are reacting to this as they are
Thanks, Annoyed. I’ll ponder this and reply later.
For now, I’ll just note that Ashman’s implication that the Queen of Haileybury is a normie is absolutely hilarious. She is as normie as a Kardashian.
Thanks again, Annoyed. I’m hardly in the mood to defend Ashman but my feelings about your characterisation are mixed. I think Ashman in his comment was trying to be diplomatic, it’s just that he really sucked at it. I think Ashman was blindsided by the Queen’s nasty and unilateral act, and then regarded himself/researchED stuck with this nastiness as a done deal.
There is no question that researchED in general exhibits an astonishing level of certainty and self-importance. Whether or not you are correct, that this is pissing people off in general, it is certainly pissing me off. But, I didn’t get that lordly sense from Ashman’s remarks about Stokke. I took it, and take it, at face value: that he thought it was worth Stokke and me meeting, that researchED was a natural place to do so, and that he thought and hoped that there may be other natural opportunities to do so.
The rest of what you wrote, I pretty much agree. In particular, Ashman repeatedly reminding us that Haileybury have “the right to decide who enters their campus” really got up my nose. No one was ever disputing the right of Haileybury to be precious assholes. The dispute was whether anybody was too thick, or too invested in the cult, to see that Haileybury were being precious assholes.
Feel free to publish my email to you. It’s entirely consistent with what I wrote above. Haileybury have the right to decide who enters their campus. But make sure you include the whole exchange which start with you saying how you are going to write about it all. While you’re on, perhaps explain why you asked the woman from Haileybury who contacted you to spell her name for you.
I am trying hard to lower the volume and be nice here. If you are intent on making it nastier, I am happy to oblige.
I am tired but I will quickly answer your question.
I thought the person was treating me incredibly and deplorably, and I wanted to know who was treating me in such a deplorable manner, as pretty much anyone would. I did not catch her name at the beginning and so, once it was clear that she had zero interest in listening to anything and was ending the call, I asked her to repeat her name. I was listening in the car, on a bad line, still did not properly catch her name and so I asked her to spell it.
That’s it. There was zero broader purpose.
Does that suffice? Any other questions?