Comments

Am I right in thinking Google allows each employee 20% of their week – i.e. 1 day a week to do anything they want? This is a similar approach to that outlined by Mr Frohman it seems to me …. And it seems to work for Google. In most organisations I suspect we have far too little ‘my time.’ Certainly in my career in healthcare the pervasive feeling was

‘If you ain’t at your desk, stressed and sweating you ain’t really working.’

What crap - we all know the best ideas come when our minds are freed up from the daily grind. Paradoxically, as a self employed person I now spend far more time ‘day dreaming’ and ‘unscheduled’ … Yet I am far ‘busier’ ( and less stressed and sweating) than in the corporate world and definitely far more effective … only anecdotal and subjective I know, but sure as hell works for me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 17, 2008 4:53 PM

The most expensive and most valuable asset of any company is the brain. Yet we waste is all the time. As we work with companies and senior executives to focus their efforts to accelerate their business progress, we include ways of freeing up time for thinking.

We encourage out clients to schedule appointments with themselves to get the time and then close the door, turn off the computer and silence the phone so that they keep it.

Make an apointment today.

Posted by John Maver at July 17, 2008 5:02 PM

I was with some people yesterday and this subject arose. One guy complained that he'd taken a pee break and his mobile phone had gone off in the toilet so he'd had to answer it while, err, peeing. My response was (you'll not be surprised to hear!) less than sympathetic: it's your choice to take the phone into the loo and it's your choice to answer it, wherever you are; don't complain if you've let other people inconvenience you. (No pun intended.)

Similarly, another guy was bemoaning how his holiday was interrupted by "having" to spend a couple of hours each day on e-mail via his Blackberry. Again, my view is: if you don't want to be interrupted, don't take it. Or if you have to, leave an out-of-office alert to the effect that you're on vacation and will only respond to urgent e-mails, briefly, once per day at a specific time.

Does your mobile phone / Blackberry / Outlook run your life or do you manage them to run your own life?

Posted by Mark JF at July 18, 2008 2:39 AM

Hi Mark - great story - I guess the consolation is that it proves us guys can multi-task after all :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 18, 2008 3:55 AM

This, therefore, is a faded dream of the time when I went down into the dust and noise of the Eastern market-place, and with my brain and muscles, with sweat and constant thinking, made others see my visions coming true. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible.

T E Lawrence

Posted by PaulH at July 18, 2008 4:36 AM

I totally agree with this post however there is one big problem in all this - most orgs take a dim view of people who behave in this way.

The kind of approach talked of in this entry is more naturally my style - but I have to be very careful not to show it as much as I do it.

Fundamentally this goes back to my constant rant about leaders being unable or unwilling to look at different styles and skills and use them to advantage in the right situations.

Posted by PaulH at July 18, 2008 4:41 AM

Tom, your post reminds me of the boss in Blanchard and Johnson's One Minute Manager - do you remember? The guy who was always staring out of the window, just thinking, when anyone walked in.

I wonder how many of today's busy managers would jump down your throat if you took a few minutes out just to think? Quite a few I suspect. Because the comments I'm hearing from clients and colleagues are things like 'Leadership is about taking action!', 'It's about being decisive! and 'Thinking time is a luxury!'.

How can we overcome this inertia and change the way managers lead?

Clustering round watering holes like Tom's blog is a good starting point. Realising that you're not alone. And just trying to share these strategies with other movers and shakers round the company. Especially if the movers and shakers are highly regarded.

If you can reach a critical mass of people who are willing to lead in a different way then maybe things will change.

Have courage. Try it. And keep trying.

Regards
Steven Sonsino, author
'The Seven Failings
of Really Useless Leaders'

Posted by Steven Sonsino at July 18, 2008 5:18 AM

Paul,

I understand your realism. However, I would point out that 'orgs' do not have opinions, PEOPLE do, and we CAN have an impact and influence people. I've never had any success having a conversation with an org and if you're trying...... ;o)

I love the quote

Another thing occurs to me. if Jung is right and perception is projection; and if you have a 'constant rant'; the solution to your rant may not be with them but with you.

From someone who had a very similar constant rant until someone posed the same question....

Posted by Gregor Findlay at July 18, 2008 5:40 AM

Gregor - picking up your thought, look at the work of Viktor Frankl. You can't control what other people do to you but you can control how you react to it.

Posted by Mark JF at July 18, 2008 1:10 PM

Tom, great post and a couple of really good concepts for management - not necessarily leadership. I agree that a good manager has to be able to think about his work in looser terms (daydram). He must also get things off his desk. My motto has always been if someone who works in my organization can do this they should. I will do the things that only I can do. However, I do not think these concepts (and I'll have to read the book) address leadership. Leadership must look over the horizon and continually establish the future - management must be charged with getting things done now.

Posted by D A Morton at July 18, 2008 4:57 PM

I was unfortunate enough to work for an employer who expected some tangible output from me, 60 hours a week. I finally got fed up and left to work for me.

Two years later when my biggest client made me an offer I couldn't refuse (okay, I chose not to refuse ;) I worked for a supervisor who fully expected me to daydream as part of my job. Same thing happened the next time I let a client suck me in; my job was really 'creative problem solving' despite the fact that I usually built web tools as the visible manifestation of the solutions. But they came from corporate-sanctioned daydreaming.

I'm fairly sure I won't strike gold three times running, so I'm sticking to self-employment. Now, the office manager sees me daydreaming and just rubs my shoulder as she walks past . . . it's one of the best parts of our marriage.

Posted by Joel D Canfield at July 18, 2008 6:39 PM

"Leadership the Hard Way: Why Leadership Can't Be Taught - But go Ahead and buy this book anyway "

Posted by x at July 18, 2008 9:00 PM

Nice, Joel. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 19, 2008 8:45 AM

How about suggesting - mandating?!! - daydream time for the support staff? No one knows where the roadblocks to productivity are like the ones who are shovelling at the rock face.

And they don't have to come up with all the answers either- sometimes it's a good question that you need.

Posted by Lois Gory at July 19, 2008 9:47 AM

Conceptually I agree...but the reality is in some industries...customer service call centers for one, accessibility is monitored as closely as blood pressure during surgery. The more calls in queue, the flatter the line gets. As a consumer, would you be more tolerant of the longer wait time because less folks were on the phone during "me" time? I need time to get them off the phone for training, coaching and development and I can squeeze some "me" time in for them once in a great while, but not often enough.

This is clearly a leadership issue...at all levels of the organization! Turnover...the metric that best illustrates what a lack of this type of time, and many other things is measured by. The goal of any company should be to develop and retain a "world class" team. I control what happens below me in the company and can influence a couple of levels up. I got the developing "world class" folks part covered. What often causes them to leave however are the policies, processes, and bad decisions of those way above us. Let's hold everyone accountable fr turnover and link what ever bonus one is paid directly to employee churn. We know what the problems are down here on the frontline...we just don't have access to those several levels up, around the current roadblocks, to have the discussion.

Here's an idea...I'm serious. If you agree that me/daydream time is important, the next time you ask to speak to a manager regarding a problem with service...let us know what the problem was and then proceed to whip our ears with questions like how much time do folks have to train or daydream, how much turnover we have, etc. Become advocates for your service providers...to paraphrase Jerry McGuire "Help us help you"...What do you say folks...it will help me get around the roadblocks!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at July 19, 2008 12:06 PM

Lois and Dave – given the fact most workers at the front line have their toes held against the fire most of the time it is all the more remarkable they STILL come up with the best ideas. You are both so right – if we could just give front liners more time to ‘day dream’ just imagine how they could lead the turn around of poor organisations.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 19, 2008 4:44 PM

"I am here to do life-altering work. Period." Tom Peters

Who do you think you are kidding other than most of the contributors to this blog?

Posted by x at July 19, 2008 9:21 PM

At risk of offending someone again... here's one for 'x'.

JUST WHAT THE F*CK DO YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PLACE, WITH YOUR SNIPPY LITTLE-MINDED QUIPS?

And, you've clearly shown us your worst - how about raising your bar and showing us your better side?

Posted by g at July 20, 2008 4:06 AM

x - For me, your contributions here are generally relevant and precise. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 20, 2008 4:37 AM

I'm with gulliver on this one. If you are going to criticize, let's hear reasons, let's hear a constructive purpose or agenda. To, ehem, rephrase a bit,

x - care to explain a bit as to what you might be getting at? (beyond the obvious, of course).

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 20, 2008 11:25 AM

Funny thing...I took the comment as a compliment. x, of course, can explain what he meant precisely.

My take: perhaps, while TP may appear (only appear) to be the lone one who wishes to do "life-altering work," there are perhaps others, even those among us here, who wish to do the same thing.

And, since we're talking critical thinking here, I do not think that g has done any better in this area by simply critizing x without a "constructive purpose or agenda."

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 20, 2008 11:58 AM

One of the many definitions or distinctive characteristics of a leader to me is one who wishes to do "life-altering work." The kind of work that affects the personal and professional lives of those who will listen. There is only one leader, that is, one being--not two distinct persons in one.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 20, 2008 12:09 PM

Yes, "I am here to do life-altering work. Period." Tom Peters
Or, as one of my bosses put it: "Mike, you are nothing but trouble ..."

Posted by Mike L. at July 20, 2008 7:35 PM

Dave: you make a fair point about customer service centres, but... It's a question of how management chooses to run them. If they want to sweat the people and accept a high turnover as being, "the way we do things around here" then that's their call. But there are exceptions where - and you can hear it in their voices - the people clearly have more time, less pressure and are plain friendlier and more helpful. So which company are you going to do business with?

Mike: lovely quote from your boss. Mine had a similar one after a project was signed off: "Are you ready for another Mission Impossible?"

Posted by Mark JF at July 21, 2008 3:02 AM

Good morning Mark – hope the sun is shining with you – it is gorgeous here in Shakespeare’s County.

Sounds like you are describing the leadership culture the top management CHOOSES to adopt – which is, I think, what Dave was saying too. If leaders REALLY values front line workers they will allow those folks ‘me’ time for ‘daydreaming’ that Dave advocates. We can trust front line workers just as much as we can trust their managers to make the best use of 'me' time.

In the last three years I’ve had the need to ring Belkin customer/technical care about problems with my Belkin wireless network router. The customer care base is obviously outsourced overseas but the service was absolutely fantastic on each occasion. The Belkin folks made me feel like they had time for me and my particular issue. They took great care in getting to know the problem and communication was brilliant. Their English was probably technically better than mine actually. What I loved most was how they didn’t patronise me with all that glitzy crap such as … ‘And how ARE your children today Trevor?’ They just wanted to move on quickly to solve my problem but in a highly professional non hoopla way just using superb communication and people skills. Three massive cheers to Belkin from me. I completed their online feedback on both occasions telling them how brilliant their service is and how many companies can learn from Belkin.

The key (for me at least) and Belkin have cracked is ….. No bull***t, just solve the problem with good manners, reassurance, excellent manners and a smile.

The question is I suppose why aren’t they all like that? I had a diametrically opposite experience with Freeserve which of course no longer exists … maybe that tells me all I need to know.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 21, 2008 3:53 AM

I suppose mr peters wants to do life altering work.
It just seems a bit grandiose to say a thing like that about oneself. If someone else said that about his work, that would be another thing. Mr Peters is an interesting speaker. I discovered him in the early 1980's when he had a series of shows on PBS. He was a bit like the Tom Sawyer of the baby boom generation. He spoke about work in a way that pointed out how work can be fulfilling and interesting. But since then, he seems to have little new to say. For example, there is a youtube video where he does a bit on innovation. He tells the story of a child in an elementary school who failed art because he colored outside the lines. He pointed out that failing people for coloring outside the lines is exactly the wrong thing to do in a society that requires innovation. In this case, he was talking about literally coloring outside the lines. If you take a handfull of worms and dip them in paint and drop them onto a piece of paper, they will always color outside the lines. Innovation is important when someone can (metaphorically) color inside the lines in a way no one has ever done before. In other words, innovation is useful when it is done inside a base of knowledge. Very little of the posts in this blog reference knowing about anything. For example, The Ipod (a great innovation) might be discussed, but the science behind is is never discussed. An Ipod is possible because two scientists, Albert Fert of France and Peter Grünberg of Germany, discovered how to apply the spin property in quantum maechanics to allow massive amounts of information to be stored in a very small area. They also won the Nobel prize for this discovery. Without very tiny disks drives, there would be no Ipod. Where would Charlie Wilson be if the shoulder fired rocket launcher had not been invented? There is an old saying in marketing that marketers don't sell the steak, they sell the sizzle. I feel like our culture is forgeting that although the sizzle is what sells, the steak must exist before the sizzle. This is not a chicken/egg issue. I think Mr Peters has a strong bias toward the sizzle and actively avoids the steak.

Posted by x at July 21, 2008 9:37 AM

Now, as for g, my quip got you back to posting
stuff on this Blog. A few years ago, I saw a cartoon in the New Yorker where a dog was in an Internet chat room and he was thinking to himself "on the internet, no one knows that you're a dog".
I'm going to fess up - I'm an Armadillo. And, for those who might not know, Armadillo's are not easily offended.
Like water off a ducks (or armadillo's) back.

Posted by x at July 21, 2008 10:15 AM

Thank you, x. In general terms, your critical analysis above is much appreciated. Another thought, as you've just done, it could perhaps make this blog even more interesting if you added your research and thoughts to the comments more often. They are insightful. Would you? I'd like to hear them.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 10:18 AM

I have no analysis to offer on x's recent comment, save to say that I laughed out loud!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 10:44 AM

Wow - two great conversations going on in this thread - one on topic and one slightly off topic. Trevor and Mark - great stuff - I love the dreamers too - and I worry (and would find another position) when the environment gets so shrill that there is "no time" for contemplation.

x - thank you for your explanation (especially the armadillo part). As to the science behind some technology (e.g. your example of the knowledge missing from this blog or from TP's work), I admit I don't get it. The people who created the iPod don't know (or care) about the science behind the hard drives or flash memory that power them, excepting, perhaps, anything needed to answer the following questions: Do they work? How much power do they require? How big are they? What is the expected lifetime for the drive/memory? --These are questions that the creators of the iPod are interested in with regard to the storage. And for us to talk about the Physics - irrelevant.

Newton: "If I have seen farther it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Every product stands on the shoulders of its technological, ideological, or psychological giants that went before it. All of the history is necessary for the product/action/what-have-you to be created or come about, but they might not tell you much about the product itself.

This is where the analogy breaks down - why the sizzle and the steak point don't actually hit home. The steak for the iPod is not the hard drive, but the total package of drive, click wheel, user interface, compression technology, software engineering, screen, etc. It is how all these components come together that makes up the steak. The sizzle is the "lifestyle" that Apple has made the iPod represent.

So come back to Tom Peters. Coloring outside the lines, example, etc. Now, I admit I have not seen this video snippet - so I will take what you say as gospel. I don't like the analogy either - and fully believe that great artists don't get there by not mastering the techniques of their trade. Learning to color in the lines has more to do with mastering hand-eye coordination than eliminating creativity. So the analogy is not great. Let's look beyond it a bit.

Peters says we should learn to encourage and nurture outside the lines thinking. The point here is that too many managers have looked upon people with ideas as trouble or problems, instead of trying to point the dreamers in a good direction and seeing what they come up with. Creativity, in many jobs, is seen as really problematic. What is the quote from Tony Bourdain? "I want cooks working for me to get the job done, not play Wolfgang Puck with my recipes." (butchered quote no doubt). TP's point, as I understand it, is that we generally suffer more from overmanagement than from lack of structure. We spend a lot of time teaching someone to follow rules and relatively little time developing the judgment needed to know when the rules need to be broken/bent/changed.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 21, 2008 2:13 PM

The physics behind the Ipod is far from irrelevant.
When people talk about the Ipod, much of the talk covers the great design. Without the small disk drive, the design of the Ipod would be little more than an artistic exercise.
The physics is discounted because most people (including me) are not capable of doing the physics that lead to the possibility of the Ipod. People can chatter on and on about the design of the Ipod because it is possible that anyone could have come up with the design. It takes no special knowledge to
design the device and therefore people can either consciously or unconsciously insert themselves into the narrative of the invention of the Ipod. I believe that when people discuss the design of something like the Ipod, they are in some sense talking about themselves. When they talk about the physics behind it, they are talking about somebody else (the 'superhero' physist who nailed down the physics)

The steak is the disk drive. The Ipod itself is the sizzle. Marketing is the sizzle and the design of the Ipod and its marketing are one and the same.

The Ipod was inevitable once the physics behind its hardware was uncovered.
Your interpretation of what Peters philosophy is spot on. My question is, what is new about it?
His sentements can be found on the sayings written on coffee cups in half of the office cubicles on the planet.
People just need to pay more attention to what is written on their coffee cups.

Posted by x at July 21, 2008 3:24 PM

‘We spend a lot of time teaching someone to follow rules and relatively little time developing the judgment needed to know when the rules need to be broken/bent/changed.’

Thanks Martin - I like that. I may have shared the story on this Blog before of a friend and former work colleague Dave. He was a real eccentric and creative thinker I worked with almost 20 years ago in a very formal organisation where innovation was a dirty word. That organisation insisted all its folks colour inside the lines ALL the time.

Dave came along to us as a real round peg in a square hole (with hindsight I now wonder why he was actually appointed)

In his first week he arrived for meetings on his bike dressed in tracksuit, t shirt and trainers and his ‘brief case’ was a plastic Tesco shopping bag. The rest of us ‘inside the lines corporate folks’ duly wore our suits, shirts and ties and had proper brief cases of course. Dave chained his racing bike to the radiator outside the office of the Chief Executive for the meeting we held in the CEO’s office. When he came out of the meeting the porters had cut the chain and removed his bike on the instructions of the CEO.

Dave was a brilliant thinker and a great mate – he was fun to be with … in small doses.

Needless to say the system didn’t change, Dave wouldn’t change and unsurprisingly he left that job, completely frustrated after a year or 18 months at the most. I was always amazed he lasted that long in the straight jacket!

The impact he made was significant even if not long lasting. On reflection I guess he fits into your category of person who didn’t develop the judgment to know when rules need to be broken/bent/changed.

A lot of this stuff is about tactics don’t you think Martin?

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 21, 2008 4:01 PM

X - of course the science is important but the problem is in regarding it that scientists and engineers tend to see it as the be all and end all or they fail to think through or imagine the uses. Here's a thought: how many inventions are made by people who have a clear idea of it's application? And then, with the ability to commercialize that application? And then, spin it off into other areas? Answer: not many.

The plain fact is that there's a bunch of very bright people who are good at engineering, discovery etc. Then there's a bunch of very bright people who are good at spotting applications and turning them into products people want to buy. Then there are very bright designers who make them look sexy and then there are very bright marketers who make us want them even more.

It's a chain, it involves lots of people and most of them time they're all dependant on each other. Some people think certain parts are over-rated, over-rewarded etc but (like it or not) the market usually sorts that one out. But it's a chain. With the possible exception of James Dyson, I can't think of anyone who can do every one of these jobs with a consistently high level of skill.

Posted by Mark JF at July 21, 2008 4:10 PM

If I remember the colouring outside the lines quote correctly it was from someone whose 5(?)-year-old daughter had been given a Fail grade at school for this motor skills transgression. The point was simple: how can anyone FAIL a child for this - at any age, let alone five? Schools by and large enforce conformity to their process, agenda and values, discourage free and lateral thinking, and penalise or stigmatise "failure". These traits actively work against creativity. In the creative process, There Will Be Failure; it's almost inevitable. The creative innovator builds on the failure of one idea to construct another. The poor sap beaten by the school system gives up at the first failure and puts their idea, and their creative urge, away for ever. That's why most education systems are hopelessly behind the game, and downright bad for children.

Posted by Rob at July 21, 2008 4:23 PM

Trevor - great story - and much of it is sad, in a way. I suppose jobs that are not forgiving (at least a little bit) to eclectic or eccentric people are not jobs for them. More power to the company that could accommodate him and steer his eclecticism to creative and innovative ends!

As for the steak and sizzle, x - what about the iPod Nano? No disk drive = no steak, just sizzle? or different steak? I don't think people would say that the steak in the iPod changes depending on whether it has a drive or not. Now some of its electronic components change - and some of the qualities - but functionally it does not matter whether it is a HD or SS flash memory. And as for the design and all the other components being just sizzle: have you tried to use the other players? They have the HD too. Most really suck. And it is not the marketing talking there either. Try to use any of the others while driving. Yikes!

As for TP and coffee cups: I don't remember coffee cups saying anything like that prior to TP - and even if they did - there is a lot to be said for an articulation that actually resonates and DOES get people to change the way they think about management. Luckily for us, TP does not have one coffee cup slogan for us, but at least 131! ;-)

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 21, 2008 4:23 PM

Mark - spot on! It is also true that the lineage of electronics will go all the way to Edison, Franklin or before - so there could easily be an issue here with proximate/ultimate causes (see Aristotle!).

And Rob - exactly so. This was John Dewey's point around 100 years ago when he complained that schools were poisonous to creativity and democracy.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 21, 2008 4:33 PM

I think there is a cultural bias against people (scientists, for example) who spend time gathering large doses on knowledge and I think it can be seen in some of the responses above.

Somewhat paradoxily, I also think there is a bias towards believing work must be an expeience that should border on extasy. Factory work is thought to be bad. 'Mindless' tasks are thought to be bad. This is the view of the movers and shakers of society. Of course they would feel this way. If they found rote work to be rewarding, they would not be in a position to be a mover of a shaker. I believe this is one of the reasons why we, as a culture, are so willing to send those types of jobs off to lower wage nations. There are large swaths of the American population who would be very happy to be able to punch in at 8am and punch out at 4pm and then go home to spend quality time - a lot of quality time- with their familes, friends and neighbors.

Posted by x at July 21, 2008 4:59 PM

x, In reading your last comment I am reminded of the writing of Nicholas Nassim Taleb from his book, The Black Swan. Taleb asserts that we use narrative as a way of applying order to a rather random or all too detailed existence. This can become delusional, preventing the reality of the Black Swan. Great book for all who have not read it after TP's recommendation, "READ IT, DAMMIT!" I'm savoring it page by page.

We can't take in all of the things around us, let alone the physics behind technology such as the Ipod. (Is this necessarily bad all the time? Perhaps it's a matter of what comes first the knowledge or narrative? Perhaps it's irrelevant? Do we get a real sense when there is no applicable knowledge?) Hence, the assertion is that we use narrative, perhaps sometimes to our detriment, lulled into believing that we have knowledge and understanding when we, in fact, do not. He also asserts s that our bent towards the narrative, which is essentially what you seemed to be opposed to, is a "fallacy."

Taleb writes, "We like stories, we like to summarize, and we like to simplify, i.e., to reduce the dimension of matters...The fallacy is associated with our vulnerability to overinterpretation and our predilection for compact stories OVER raw truths...The narrative fallacy addresses our limited ability to look at sequences of facts without weaving an explanation into them or, eqivalently, forcing a logical link, an arrow of relationship, upon them. Explanations bind facts together. They make them all the more easily understood; they help them make more sense, Where the propensity can go wrong is when it increases the IMPRESSION of understanding."

Stories and narratives do not always mean wisdom, understanding, or knowledge. TP clearly has great wisdom, understanding, and knowledge from which flow "raw truths."

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 5:02 PM

Martin – I lost track of Dave but I’m sure he found somewhere that welcomed him …

Rob – great comments and wise words – ‘That's why most education systems are hopelessly behind the game, and downright bad for children’ – I like that! It’s just like in my world of work we say ‘hospitals are unhealthy places to be in.’

I’ve heard TP say words to the effect – be suspicious of anyone with A Grades for everything - it only proves they coloured between the lines.

I’m proud of the exams I passed in my education and the qualifications I got as a post graduate during my management career. I also applaud and acknowledge all who work hard for qualifications to develop themselves – I never knock learning. But I also recognise passing exams only proves you can pass exams. There just has to be a better way of judging our kids than grades and assessments for everything.

Sir Richard Branson has dyslexia and dropped out of University because he was seriously p*****d off. He got out ..... and there would go thousands, maybe millions of others (if they could) who instead just stay ‘in there’ learning how to colour between the lines.

Great discussion.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 21, 2008 5:11 PM

x- To a large extent I agree with your comment about the mundane. It is precisely the mundane (simply doing it) that over time brings great success. Philosophers, scientists and artists understand this well. Even when it appears that nothing is being achieved, out of seemingly nowhere arrives that "aha" that pushes us beyond the mundane until the next discovery. Many times the process is far from ecstasy. Often times the process is grueling and perhaps even demeaning.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 5:11 PM

Much of the thinking I have developed about science has come to me from a recent experience.
I applied to a phd program in Bioinformatics and
although I had great grades, GRE scores and recommendations, one of the major reasons I was accepted was because I am an american citizen which made me a minority. Affirmative Action worked for me and I'm not a bit ashamed.
Although I benefited from being a 'minority'
(when was the last time a WASP was considered a minority) I started wondering why American citizens do not go into scientific fields, even ones that can be finantially rewarding.

Posted by x at July 21, 2008 5:14 PM

Leaders understand the mundane well and are not overly excited about ecstasy or the narrative over raw truths. He/she also understands how to use the narrative without the necessary raw truths on open display all the time.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 5:16 PM

WAY TO GO X! AND CONGRATULATIONS! BEST IN THE PROGRAM!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 5:21 PM

Creativity and education.
In my opinion, its a worn out discussion.
Its been going on since the early 1900's.
Ask an 18 year old high school graduate what they are planning to do with their life. If they don't have a clear idea (and it can't be rap star, movie star, sports star etc) and a decent plan of how to get there, the school they went to failed them. They are a child who has been left behind.
Who cares if they are 'creative'. Who cares if they can do algebra (unless algebra is neccesary to get what they want)
If an 18 year old who has spent 12 years in school has no idea what he is good at and how he/she can use that talent/skill to make a living, the school has failed.

Posted by x at July 21, 2008 6:07 PM

x - I estimate eight out of ten 18 year olds I speak to will say ‘I don't know what I want to do yet’

So I guess 80% of schools fail our kids – sounds fair enough to me. Actually I had absolutely no idea what I wanted to do when I was 18 … in fact at 56 I still don’t know what I want to do when (if) I grow up :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 21, 2008 6:16 PM

While I totally admire the likes of Bill Gates and Richard Branson, it amazes me how often the former, in particular, is used as examples of success having dropped out of college. This to me is ludicrous and unsound advice. There are probably one to many hundreds of millions whose lives will be significantly altered without a college education in today's global and technological world. College offers way more than the taking of exams. It is where most young people get their first taste of the global world up close. Using the above as examples is also like the many young people in the 'hood who dream of being Michael Jordon or Koby Bryant and say, "To hell with school; I'm gonna be like Mike!" Right?!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 6:19 PM

It is not only schools that have failed but parents, communities and the government. Parents know their kid best and it seems to me that they would be the guides to helping them develop who they might become along the way. My siblings are all an eclectic group that wondered through various careers, succeeding at any at any given times, failing sometimes too.

My mother knew our talents and propensities individually, but never stressed what she thought, but gently lead us. Our religious studies in "Servant Leadership" was the only thing she stressed; we are all well adjusted citizens that make contributions in an array of fields.

I must also say that the curricula in schools should really be looked at anew. Students are effectively choosing from as early as middle schools what classes THEY think best. Give me a break!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 6:31 PM

In my opinion, holding up Bill Gates or Richard Branson as examples to follow makes
almost as much sense as holding up as an example a 300 million dollar lottery winner as someone to follow.
Bill gates and Branson are extremely talented (and lucky) people -

Trevor - one reason you may not have known what you wanted to do at 18 had something to do with the curricula -
Also, I bet most of the teachers in your school became teachers because the only industry they were deeply exposed to was education -

I taught high school for a year in a 'at risk' high school. The subject I taught was Algebra. About 30% of the kids in the class had previously failed Algebra more than one time. From these kids points of view, the school system had found something they were not very good at and kept reminding them over and over again of this weakness each and every day. The state has just increased the math requirement for graduation from 1 year to 4 years. The state legistature (which I'm sure is made up of successfull people who never needed a lick of mathematics beyond arithmetic to achieve their success) have decided that in order for a person to succeed, he/she must be profiecient at Algebra, Geometry and Trigonometry. This situation could have been dreamt up by Kafka.

Posted by x at July 21, 2008 7:24 PM

Thank you, x, wholeheartedly.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 7:38 PM

"I believe that when people discuss the design of something like the Ipod, they are in some sense talking about themselves. When they talk about the physics behind it, they are talking about somebody else (the 'superhero' physist who nailed down the physics)"

This is quite an astute observation, x. I also wonder if because the indentification is essentially one of self, if this assists in product sales? Now, from a psychologial/philosophical point of view, one might wonder if solipsism (essentially I, my mind - that is - is all that I know exists) has reached a new zenith. But does the inseparable notion of the indistinguishable product/person sale?

On another level, it is when we can step outside of ourselves to understand the other (maybe not in totality, but perhaps the sheer effort of such an act) that our own consciousness is raised and knowledge increased. It takes much more to talk about another than to talk about oneself. Identification in understanding is perhaps limiting. These thoughts may be those of leadership and not necessarily sales.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 21, 2008 10:01 PM

'Trevor - one reason you may not have known what you wanted to do at 18 had something to do with the curricula - Also, I bet most of the teachers in your school became teachers because the only industry they were deeply exposed to was education'

I'm sure you are right x. My most vivid memories of the academic part of school all those decades ago are around subjects I enjoyed doing most and not those subjects that still make no sense to me almost 40 yers later. This and the style of teaching maybe. Interestingly the real emotional connection with my school days were the many hours I spent playing sports – that probably says more about me than the teachers or the system I guess …. I was one of those you mentioned earlier that wanted to be a pro footballer (soccer player) … but such is life … like many other millions with the same aspiration … In the end I had to settle for the real world …

Thanks for your observations x - appreciated.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 22, 2008 2:11 AM

X - your views about teaching people algebra, geometry and trigonometry are interesting but rather utilitarian. Here's an observation: I'm not at all sure that in my career as a logistics person I've used any of those particular skills very much or even at all. But I'm pretty darned sure that the classes I went to gave me learning, analysis, reasoning, logic, deductive and other skills that have stood me in good stead. Similarly, I don't think I've ever quoted William Golding's "Lord of the Flies" during my career but reading it almost certainly contributed to my language, speech, imagination, communication and other skills.

It strikes me that it's not just about the educational system, and heaven knows that needs to be flexible to cope with the varying abilities of a large number of people. It's as much about creating a society in which people want to learn and see a benefit from it. When you have parents whose attitude is that they can't see a point in school, 'it nether done them no good' etc etc then it's no wonder you get kids who don't want to be there.

BTW, I fully agree with your comments about the people who want to turn up, do a job and go home. (I've been taken to task myself on this one in the past.) You're right, although it's not only factory jobs: there are plenty of call centre workers, clerks, shop assistants, stockbrokers and others with this attitude. As long as they do a good job, then good luck to them. It isn't the way I choose to live and if there's a some of them like that on my team I'll always give them the opportunity to get more involved. But if, "Turn up, work well, go home" is their attitude then I can live with it.

Posted by Mark JF at July 22, 2008 4:45 AM

It's not a matter of whether one uses all of what one has ever known in one's life but rather that one has some understanding of the varied. (I very much appreciate MarkJF's Lord of Flies analogy.)Knowledge and understanding assert themselves, when one has applied oneself to know wisdom in any field or area (though, sometimes not, but seemingly rather expendientially) in ways unknown or unexpected at any given time. Some arguments have been addressed. Others affirmed. Others picked at until they eventually embrace the beauty of the original thought, perhaps with some shade of difference. Thanks, x. Isn't life grand?

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 22, 2008 5:10 AM

I think it is possible or maybe likely that
mathematics teaches some type of thinking as does literature. At the moment. we take it on faith. I read somewhere that a predictor of success in college is how well you can read technical materials as opposed to literary works.
Most of what is in the High School curricula was chosen 150 years ago.
I have no idea why they teach geometry (I happen to actually like it) in high school. If teaching logic is the goal, then teach computer programming instead. Kill several birds with one stone. In one education course I took, we were exposed to the 'discovery' method of teaching mathematics. I really thought it was a cool idea. That raised my suspicians. I felt like the method fit with my 'life philosophy' and thought it might be possible that it might not be better, I just might happen to like it. I asked the professor if there had been any research done to show the method was more effective than other methods. She said no, but then she said 'how can it not be better, it just feels right'.
Recently I've read that the method has not been shown to be more effective than other methods and can be less effective.
My point is that for the most part, theories of education are based on sentiment (that how they did it when I was a kid) or gut feelings and not much else. The idea that mathematics and literature contribute to intellectual development are just taken as accepted fact, but no one actually has any data to confirm of deny it. Schools are probably the only intitutions that are basically the same as they were 150 years ago.

Posted by x at July 22, 2008 8:50 AM

I feel that if you are in school for 12 years
and when you graduate, your choices are to go to college or work in walmart, the school has failed. Suppose you happen to be college bound. Would it be so wrong that when you graduated H.S., you knew enough about air-codnsioner repair or auto mechanics that you could make more than minimum wage as you worked you way through college? You might even discover its what you really love to do even if your SAT scores are in the 1400's.
In many school districts, the vocational track is stigmatized. If vocational classes were viewed as mainstream, the stigma would disappear and their quality would rise.

Posted by x at July 22, 2008 9:32 AM

One of the reasons people don't know what they want to have as their vocation at 18 is that they are not yet adults. This voyage of discovery (both the growing up part and the figuring out who you are) is greatly effected by who you are around and where you are.

The earlier you make people "decide what to do with their lives" (e.g. make decisions that are hard to undo) the more errors they make and the more dissatisfied they become.

Now, I am also all for variety of experience - both in vocational education and more traditional education, as I think being exposed to lots of different ways of making a living helps people find what resonates with them - what gives them the passion to be great at what they do. Too many people end up hating what they do, mostly from lack of self-understanding or exposure.

As for educational theory - there has been a whole lot of great work here (certainly NOT based on sentiment). x's comment says more about the effectiveness of theorists for getting their voice heard than anything else. The biggest problem: Money. The progressive education movement died (or at least died back) for lack of funding - not from lack of results or bad theories.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 22, 2008 10:52 AM

Look at the on going debate about the single subject of mathematics. You will find people who strongly believe in 'discovery' and people who strongly believe in 'tradition' and no data to support one over the other.
I agree that 18 is too young to force someone to make a decison on what they should do. What concerns me is in that during the 12 years they have spent in school, they have not been given enough information to be able to make a decision even if they were are capable of making the decision.

Posted by x at July 22, 2008 11:17 AM

Martin...I could not disagree with you more. We throw more money in to public education in this country and the literacy rate is dismal. I think x has a brilliant point about the sentimentality of education and perhaps the needed for changes in cirricula. While the sentimentality is undoubtedly still present, we have greatly changed with regards to the curricula for students. I'm not sure these changes have been all for the betterment of the students.

This morning I was with my crew of construction workers at Home Depot, choosing colors for a number of houses. (This I rarely do, but wanted to tag along today.) I was simply amazed just watching the associate mix the various paints and determining by technology how much of each primary color will be needed to get the colors I had chosen. The technology alone was cool for me.

Walking around Home Depot, I was just simply astonished at the many isles that included so much knowledge from plumbing, to painting to carpentry to gardening. Now, I will never do any of this stuff, save gardening, but my mind was totally engrossed in the experience and I learned so much.

While one cannot possibly do everything, exposure to many things is so very important; it affects your primary career, your life, and just gives you a broader understanding of life and people in general. We determine what makes us tick through experiences, though our proclivities may have been there all along. A trip to Home Depot or Walmart with a behind the scenes look might, labratories, car garages, factories, etc., may spark something in some girl or boy.

All of our kids will not wish to go to college and this is OK. For these, we must prepare as well. Some school district have prepared for these students by sending them to vocational schools their senior and junior years. Parents should have a say in this selection too. Kids should not simply be shuffled off to vocational school because of poor grades. Some kids catch on that first year of junior college and go on to excel at university.

It might be a good idea also to train the staff about work ethics and possessing a cheerful disposition (That attitude determining altitude saying is big for me.) Many may not be particularly satisfied with their station in life as an associate with Home Depot or Walmart. Sometimes this is obvious. It is highly plausible, however, that if associates have a cheerful helpful disposition and makes it happen for someone else, some one will make it happen for them. I, for one, am always on the lookout for great talent and leadership abilities ANYWHERE!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 22, 2008 2:57 PM

I'm 51 and I still haven't figured out what I want to be when I grow up. An astronaut, I think, although I haven't seen any college classes in this.

Posted by Mark JF at July 22, 2008 4:39 PM

Judith, I am wondering what you disagree with in my post? Are you thinking that we should spend more on education? Certainly not in the 'No child left behind' era where testing serves as the bar that schools need to get to - this just frustrates everyone and creates a horrible educational atmosphere.

My point was that the progressive education movement from the early part of the 20th century (where from recess, wood shop, band, art classes, etc. originate) was very expensive - much more so that the "sage on the stage" autocratic model that was dominant at the time and remains dominant today. The depression ended most of the progressive school work (excepting the vestiges mentioned above). But the theoretical work that underlies the progressive school movement has undergone a resurgence over the past decade in a half. It will take some time to make any headway - especially when people think of test scores as the 'outcome' that is required, as opposed to abilities, maturity, and passion.

A great book on school reform and how it works is Cuban and Tyack's "Tinkering Toward Utopia" - somewhat dated now, but incredibly relevant just the same. And if you want an excellent critique of the 'No child left behind' debacle, get Nel Noddings's "When School Reform Goes Wrong".

There are some excellent things happening in education schools around the world - educating the next generation of teachers. With proper support from Federal, State, and local sources we may see some important strides forward (and with that I do not mean more money - certainly throwing more money at the issue is not the answer.

Oh - and x - just because a teacher cannot articulate a good reason for preferring on method over another, does not mean there are not good reasons. The real answer is usually that some learners do better with one method, some with another. This does not mean either method is bad in general, but rather methods used without regard to the particular makeup of the audience may have mixed results. Not very surprising.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 22, 2008 10:26 PM

Quote: "when you graduated H.S., you knew enough about air-conditioner repair or auto mechanics ..."
Are you listening parents? As a teenager, my parents (academics) involved me in plumbing, electrical work and auto maintenance. Great skills! And they made physics, math, etc., so much more meaningful.

Posted by Mike L. at July 23, 2008 2:33 AM

Martin...Disagreement is OK. Really. What I know is that when I used to teach as a substitute off and on for a number of years, teachers complained about not getting paid well enough, taxpayers complained about how much money was being spent on mileages that didn't make much of a difference, and parents complained that while their kids represented X amount of money in the school district that they were not being well educated.

I am sure that some excellent things are being done in education. I would just like to see more of it nationwide. Often times the care of students are divided along financial lines. Those areas with the highest tax base, usually serve the students better, although such was not always the case. (I was often requested by prinicples from many school districts and I chose the school where the need was the greatest and even made house calls.) I remember hearing stories of one-room-school houses where teachers had such a a passion for excellence that they transformed the lives of so many underpriviledged young people. The passion of the teachers for teaching, the parents for training, and the student for learning was great.

It seems to me that plenty of money has been spent on students. But, I defer here to the experts; my question is whether the money is being spent well. Like entreprenurial ventures, schools should in many aspects be run efficiently as such-that is, the purely administration aspect. Often times they are not. My point and my disagreement is: no amount of more money will handle the lack of passion, mismanagement and the responsibility that it takes "a village to raise a child."

Regarding the various methods, I am reminded of one of Tom's slide that speaks to the fact that a kid in Ohio and one in Arizona are learning such vastly different things in vastly different ways. Why? We cannot educate every student differently in such a vast country. There is something to be said for universality. But the care that is given to each student and the passion with which this care is given can make the difference.

Except for special needs students, a universal system is probably preferable. I have a brilliant autistic niece, who can hear a movie once and repeat the entire movie from finish to end. This maddens her teenage sister who is also a brilliant student and fashions herself a budding actress. She, however, has difficulties in remembering scenes from the school play. My autistic niece has been mainstreamed since kindergarten and this has been very helpful. But she is in one of the best school districts in Michigan where the PTA is well supported and the tax base is very high.

Martin, "that makeup of the audience" that you spoke of still needs to be universal to my understanding. That late 50's liberal deconstruction of curricula stuff might have caused more damage in many cases than good. What we need is more care and passion from teachers and administrators, supported, of course, by funding. We did not perhaps need a variety of curricula. A Passion of Excellence is, in fact, care. TP relays a most beautiful story in his book, A Passion for Excellence:

"After I entered a private junior high school in 1955, my mother took on a new job-teaching the fifth grade in nearby suburban elementary school. It had students from ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds other than she had been used to. She taught there-contrary to her inital plans-for almost twenty years, and occassionally I acted as her bumbling assistant. The memories are vivid.

First, she was totally involved. She was on her feet all the time (doing MBWA.) There was no reason to have a desk, thought the school system provided one. She was never behind it. She paced about the room, nudging, cajoling, pushing, pressing. Above all she had a passion for her students. The letters that she still receives, twenty years later now, from both good and bad, successful and unsuccessful, attest to that.

Her room was a hotbed of creativity. Everyone was allowed to exprewss himself or herself with a unique project. At the same time, the seeming chaos was embedded in a context of extraordinary discipline: total respect was to be shown by each student for every other student-or else! No rudness was tolerated. Not only did the discipline and creativity with each other, bbut they went hand in glove. The discipline of care and concern for one another was the necessary foundation upon which the less venturesome were willing to step out and try a little bit of something new.

A passion for the material was evident as well. (Josephy Epstein's Masters: Portrait of Great Teachers underscores this point. Above all, each master teacher is marked by great passion for his or her subject. The technical excellence-i.e., mastery-is there, too, of course, but it is the passion which is decisive, which alters the lives of so many students.) My mother was appalled by the new math (the very best of us afre often appalled by her new twists), but her love of learning knew no bounds. Certainly I learned more of Maryland's history, one of her special passions-the shcoo was located halfway between Baltimore and Annapolis-and more of an appreciation of where I was within the universe from working for her as an elementary school assistant than I did in my private high school."

What beauty! Many thanks, TP! This is such a wonderful example of care and passions, hallmarks of great leadership.

I know this is long. Thank you all for reading. I will return the favor.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 23, 2008 3:59 AM

There is an old saying that opinions are like noses. Everyone has one. When it comes to education, everyone who has a nose has an opinion of education. I have a nose, therefore I have an opinion of what education should be.
I have a love of learning. But that's me. Its just the way I am. Education in one way or another always seems to have a streek of indoctrination built in. Think about something as simple as The Pledge of Allegiance that starts out the day in many schools. Why do are children pledging their Allegence to anything?
Besides, they are minors, so thier word is not evening binding. Its meaningless. But is sets the stage for indoctination. So is giving children a 'love of learning'. In my opinion, this can be just a rationaliztion for forcing kids to memorize useless facts. In one way or another, a type of religion is taught in most every school. Even teaching children to 'express themselves' or to 'be creative' can become a philosphy/religion. They should be learning something that is usefull. Something that the world outside of the school building needs. For example, a professor from MIT belives science and mathematics should not be subjects - Engineering should be the subject and math and science are brought in when they can be helpful in solving engineering problems. Of course, if such a curruculum was introduced, everyone with a nose would weigh in and who knows what would (or should) happen.

Posted by x at July 23, 2008 10:00 AM

Yeah, x, right! We are really thinking about noses in your opening statement. But I guess I kinda like it, especially the ending. But the middle leaves me with one question in particular: Can we even have structure without some form of indoctrination? By the way, I too am a lover of learning.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 23, 2008 10:33 AM

Judith, thank you for the TP story - it is those teachers that, sadly, there do not seem to be enough of. Couple that with a system that punishes them, and we get trouble.

I find the comment about noses offensive. The implication is that there is no difference between views that are well considered and come from knowledge and experience, and those that do not. Or, perhaps, that we can't tell. Luckily, teachers are very resilient and passionate - God knows they don't do it for money.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 23, 2008 8:32 PM

Anyone interested in a competence-based approach to an educational curriculum might appreciate the attached link to an RSA project in the UK. This has been trialling a radically different curriculum in a number of schools for some years, so far with impressive results.

http://www.thersa.org/projects/education/opening-minds/opening-minds-framework

Posted by Rob at July 24, 2008 5:42 AM

Thanks, Rob.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 24, 2008 6:55 AM

Martin, With regards to the importance of varying viewpoints, I agree. But, of course, it would be impossible and even counterproductive to get the opinion of everyone, all citizens, when designing a curriculum. Just think what an momentous time-consuming non-value added task that would be? With our representative system, perhaps one of the best there is, we think of ourselves as democratic. This is indeed good. But decisions, as we know in reality, are often made for us without our opinion or consent.

Think Charlie Wilson. Although he had to convince and get buy in from a few key people, he seems to have made those decisions, masterfully building support all along the way, unilaterally. Or, think Iran Contra. It is only when these decisons have failed that others often weigh in, post facto. I am not, however, advocating such decisions, but merely stating facts. It is, however, virtually impossible to get everyone's opinion on any one thing, let alone get everyone to agree. Growing up in a house of 11 siblings made this point very clear.

If a particular thing such as education or governmental policy is your passion press forward to get your opinion heard to bring about change. Passion involves pressing and perhaps this is what makes the difference not simply hearing the opinion of everyone. As stressed, this could indeed be counterproductive.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 24, 2008 7:38 AM

Sorry if I was offensive. Read it again - I include myself as someone with a nose.
As for indoctrination - I just think that most educators do not realize how much indoctrination there is - they should be aware of it - I think the curriculum should be designed as much as possible so there is an honest answer for the student who asks 'when will I ever need this?' about what is being taught. If the answer is 'you need to know geometry because it teaches you how to think' there is something wrong. I think that it is a phony answer.(and I like geometry) The only reason I can see you need to know geometry is if you want to be a geometry teacher.
When I taught mathematics, there was little time to discuss its uses in real life. I felt like I was teaching a foriegn language where I was forcing the students to learn pronuciation and grammar, but I had not time to let them know the actual meaning of the words.

I don't buy into the idea that we just need better teachers. Thats a bit like saying GM is
loosing money because its sales staff if no good.

Posted by x at July 24, 2008 8:04 AM

Hey x - I am completely with you on real life uses. This is exactly what the progressive school movement was all about - children care about adding and subtracting fractions when they are building a bird house. In abstraction, it means nothing. Connect it to something that matters to them, and then you can tap into their interest, they can care about it.

The RSA project looks great. In the U.S. we have some public schools trying very similar things through the "charter school" system (that is, some charter schools have gone down a very similar path as the RSA work).

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at July 24, 2008 8:52 AM

Not being a mathematician, I think that subjects such as math or even languages or philosophy, can teach you how to think. It's all about perhaps cajoling the mind off a set path in order to develop new ones. This cajoling seems to not only teach you how to think but expands your mental capacity. Isn't there research out there that likens your ability to think, to execrising the brain muscle in younger years to mental longevity many years later? It may be like exerising your bicep, building mass for the strength of the body now and later. The continuum is probably also important.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 24, 2008 8:57 AM

"The only reason I can see you need to know geometry is if you want to be a geometry teacher."

Or an engineer. Or a designer. Or map maker. Or a physicist. And the ability to figure out angles kinda helps with driving a car, playing goalkeeper in soccer, running lines in gridiron, flying a plane and a host of other situations.

Apart from these and several hundred other real-life applications, I think it's a waste of time!

Posted by Mark JF at July 24, 2008 9:41 AM

Funny Mark. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 24, 2008 1:03 PM

Belive me - designers or engineers or any of the things you listed dont have to prove
that the area of a trapazoid is 1/2(b1 + b2)*h.

Formal geometric proofs are fun to do, but are of little use to anyone but someone who wants to be a geometry teacher.
They are not even required to obtain a mathematics degree.

Formal geometric proofs make up what is covered in a high school geometry course.

My question is 'does philosphy or literature or math teach people how to think?'
I believe that no one knows. I don't know. Thats what I mean by indoctination. Most everything taught in school is taught because it is 'believed' that is strengthens the mind. Its all done on faith. Its like a religion.

Posted by x at July 24, 2008 4:06 PM

Brilliant Mark .... Or put another way in the immortal words of Reg; 'What did the Romans ever do for us?'

Have a great weekend and of course 'always look on the bright side of life' :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 24, 2008 5:02 PM

x-Does not the very process of critical analysis in literature and philosopy teach one how to think?

What indeed trains the mind if not the act of thinking critically?

How, x, will you get through your PhD program if you are not using critical analysis?

You will have to find a problem of sorts, I'm assuming, and solve it...or at least present a cogent argument.

Your geomerty equation I must say is beyond me.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 24, 2008 7:09 PM

Judith - My answer to your first question is no one actually knows. I don't know. I bet no one knows. In an algebra class I taught, about 25% of the class were repeaters. Some had taken the class 3-4 times. One girl who had taken the class 3 times still did not understand how to
multiply signed numbers. One day, I came to class with a question from the book Freakomics. The book relates a store of a daycare center where the parents would frequently come late to pick up their kids.
I asked the class what could be done to solve the problem. Someone said charge extra. The girl in question said that charging extra might not work because people would pick the kids up even later because they would no longer feel guilty about being late. This is what happened at the day care center. Parents came later bcause they felt it was OK because they were paying for it. The girl could not do a lick of algebra and did poorly in her other classes but could think just fine.
Another example - English class tends to focus on literary reading with almost no emphasis on technical or non-fiction reading. But the ability to read technical writing and non fiction and correctly parse that facts contained within is strongly predictive of success in college. Think about the type of reading tested for on the SAT. It requires analysis and logic, but it is usually not literatry or philosophical in nature. There should be more of an emphsis on digesting non-fiction and technical material.
In the field of statistics (my Phd) you are taught to understand and use analytical tools. You know exactly what they are for. You know they can help solve problems. There is very little ambiguity. I don't have to take someones word for its usefullness. Teach people to think by giving them probelms to solve and the tools to solve them. Teach them about the tools.
I think a major reason that philosophy and literary writing are taught in schools is because these things give some people pleasure (usually the teacher). The reasoning why these subjects are taught (they enhance thinking) are just rationalizations.
Education should take the question students ask "why do I have to learn this?" very seriously. If there is no honest answer, think about chucking it out of the curriculum. I have an undergraduate degree in Mathemematics and a Masters in Statitsics. I was teaching the factoring of quadaric equations to 9th graders when a student asked 'why do I need to learn this'. I had to reply - 'you need to learn it if you want to graduate'. I had no better answer. In order to teach it, the night before, I had to review the process of factoring, because I had not done it since I was in 9th grade. I never needed in as I persued my undergraduate Math degree or Masters degree.

Much of what is discussed about education revolves around technique. Are the teachers passonate enough? Is the material presented in such a way that it involves the students?
I think the content - what is actually being taught - is more of what is wrong than how it is taught.

And Trevor - The Eqyptians gave the Romans geometry. How else could they have built the pyramids?

Posted by x at July 25, 2008 6:47 AM

x - I like it - did you see the film?

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 25, 2008 6:55 AM

x-There is undoubtedly something to be said for good judgement and common sense. These things indeed require critical thought. (Although, common sense is perhaps not so common.) They are also often present in illiterate people. There is also something to be said for quality of life. Yes, this girl thought logically and gave a great answer. But why stop there? Why not develop her intellect and reasoning abilities further? Would she not be the better for this? Would her quality of life improve?

How much better could this girl be if she had the training necessary to better position herself? How much better could she be if she were placed in an environment that challenged her to think beyond where she currently is? Would her life decisions be different? Would she see life differently? This is what literature and philosophy do best, not to mention when what is learned is applied to everyday living. But, of course, that goes for learning of all kinds.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 25, 2008 7:34 AM

As a professional organizer, the thing I see with my clients is that if you don't plan your time, it fills up with all sorts of non-priority /busywork items. I don't think the key is keeping your time unscheduled. I think the key is scheduling blocks of time to deal with thinking about more strategic issues. Schedule a meeting with yourself to do this and you'll be focused on just that. Best-Ilene

Posted by Ilene Drexler of The Organizing Wiz at August 30, 2008 11:32 AM