Today’s Washington Post has an anecdotal story about the failure of No Child Left Behind to force any improvements at tiny Como Elementary in Como, Miss., a school that has been the state’s worst at a time when Mississippi is coming in last in standardized testing. [Dangit, what happened to "Thank God for Arkansas"?!] The story discusses all what you’d expect: those who can afford it have gone to the local private school, a common occurrence in Mississippi that’s created separate and unequal [although my experience with most of these private rural academies is that they're worse at teaching than the public schools]; the difficulty of bringing in teachers, leading to Como taking on faculty generally considered unqualified or incapable by other districts; and the general issues of getting lost in the system. Most days, I would have read this, shaken my head slowly, and said, “Yeah, NCLB didn’t make much inroads, and it’s made a lot of things worse.”

But as I was in the airport yesterday, I read “How to be top” in the 20 Oct 2007 issue of The Economist. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Programme for International Student Assessment studies what makes education actually tick:

Are students well prepared for future challenges? Can they analyse, reason and communicate effectively? Do they have the capacity to continue learning throughout life? The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) answers these questions and more, through its surveys of 15-year-olds in the principal industrialised countries. Every three years, it assesses how far students near the end of compulsory education have acquired some of the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society. The results of the PISA 2006 survey will be released on 4 December 2007.

–OECD.org, 28 Oct 2007

There are many things that make other countries’ educational systems perform well, but how they do recruiting is, to me, one of the most important:

In Finland all new teachers must have a master’s degree. South Korea recruits primary-school teachers from the top 5% of graduates, Singapore and Hong Kong from the top 30%.

They do this in a surprising way. You might think that schools should offer as much money as possible, seek to attract a large pool of applicants into teacher training and then pick the best. Not so, says McKinsey. If money were so important, then countries with the highest teacher salaries—Germany, Spain and Switzerland—would presumably be among the best. They aren’t. In practice, the top performers pay no more than average salaries.

Nor do they try to encourage a big pool of trainees and select the most successful. Almost the opposite. Singapore screens candidates with a fine mesh before teacher training and accepts only the number for which there are places. Once in, candidates are employed by the education ministry and more or less guaranteed a job. Finland also limits the supply of teacher-training places to demand. In both countries, teaching is a high-status profession (because it is fiercely competitive) and there are generous funds for each trainee teacher (because there are few of them).

South Korea shows how the two systems produce different results. Its primary-school teachers have to pass a four-year undergraduate degree from one of only a dozen universities. Getting in requires top grades; places are rationed to match vacancies. In contrast, secondary-school teachers can get a diploma from any one of 350 colleges, with laxer selection criteria. This has produced an enormous glut of newly qualified secondary-school teachers—11 for each job at last count. As a result, secondary-school teaching is the lower status job in South Korea; everyone wants to be a primary-school teacher. The lesson seems to be that teacher training needs to be hard to get into, not easy.

I have friends who are teachers or are studying to be them: Adam, Jeremy’s wife Hallie, Brian, and Kari’s husband Mike. All of them are smart folks who have chosen teaching over other careers where they could make more money or have more prestige. That said, I don’t think that any of them would feel that there was much competition for them to get into their educational coursework. At many universities, including my alma mater, the education department is the 90-pound weakling; as an engineering major, I arrogantly considered most of my liberal arts peers to be slacker punks, but I at least knew that the kids majoring in English or history or whatever were working their asses off. It never felt like the education majors were pushed all that hard, and it was widely known at UAH that education majors had the lowest average incoming ACT and SAT test scores.

And sure, we all know an Adam, a Hallie, a Brian, a Mike—a smart, dedicated student who chose education. But are those folks the norm? The statistics nationwide say that they aren’t. Why is education not considered a high-prestige major at UAH, where nursing is? I’ll argue along with the PISA folks and McKinsey: at UAH, nursing is a selective major. The upper division slots are limited—more folks are trying to get into them than spots exist. Do nurses make more money than teachers—certainly they do. But at UAH, nursing majors were respected because there was competition; conversely, education as a major seemed like a last resort, the degree you got if you weren’t smart or hard-working enough to stick in some other major. Sure, we all know the smart folks who choose to become educators, but they feel like the exception, rather than the rule.

Smart students today in America have a lot of educational and vocational possibilities. Medicine is still considered an ideal, despite the hours and workload, despite the time commitment of medical school, internship, and residency. Even in a time when our nation needs desparately needs more doctors, our nation’s medical schools refuse to lower their standards; instead, we import top talent from South Asia. The statistical evidence of other nations, as taken by PISA, would argue that we might see the same network effects if education suddenly became a difficult school to get into. Just as with highly-selective educational institutions themselves, smart kids seek the selective places not because they’re demonstrably better than anyplace else—most studies show that undergraduate education is generally good at most any nationally-recognized university—but the best of the best want to go to the toughest places not only because they are good, but because there is prestige merely in making it there. Education doesn’t have that cachet these days, and so I believe that smart students generally pass it by in favor of more prestigious, challenging, and lucrative prospects.

[And hey, I'm one of these people that argues that it's not all about the money. I could make a lot more money in middle management in fully private industry than I do working as a government contractor. But dadgummit, there just aren't that many people who get to put stuff into space, either.]

So, 95% of Americans have had premarital sex, and that result hasn’t changed for decades? Can I be in line with all the people saying, B.S.?

1. What’s with the strong skewing towards women? 33,000 of the 38,000 people sampled were women. That’s … not a good demographic balance.
2. The data comes from the surveys taken “in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth”. “What’s the nature of this study?” is the question most asked by the people I’ve sent this to via email. [Especially by all my librarian friends.] We all wonder: is this study demographically skewed? Anytime you see federal studies of this sort, you wonder if they’re aimed at a demographic: we were all left wondering if it was perhaps something done with individuals who use Federal insurance safetynets [Medicare, Medicaid, etc.], stuff that skews towards low-income families and single parent households. I guess that I’m being prejudicial in assuming that low-income families are going to be more promiscuous, and if you want to skewer me for that, go ahead. But single mothers are often unwed mothers, so … that’s just the very definition of what we’re getting at here. But in any regard, I think that the larger point is that there’s concern on my end for the demography of the sample as to how it relates to the public as a whole. The AP story doesn’t give us much data on this.
3. Lastly, if you believe demographers that argue that, on the whole, people who identify as homosexual are 10% of our population, you’re accepting that there are twice as many self-identified homosexuals as there are self-identified premarital virgins. Now, I admit that, as a religiously-inclined engineer living in the American South that I’m surrounded by a population that one would presume to be more likely to count among its number the 5% minority, much less knowing folks who openly admit their homosexual identity, I … think I know a whole lot more people who claim to have stayed virgins until marriage than who identify as homosexuals.

I wouldn’t have blinked if this study had said 75%. I might not have spent much time thinking about it if it was 80-85%. But 95%? Doesn’t that just seem a little high to you?

[I'm aware that I'm allowing my own individual anecdotes affect my perceptions of this research. I guess I'm wanting to see the actual paper and the methodology to cure my skepticism.]

A quick riposte while on a lunch break after nine hours at work mostly spent writing a proposal:

Buzzwords aren’t all bad, 37 Signals. The examples cited typically seem to indicate a desire to be anti-elitist and inclusionary. Well, not all communication is meant for outsiders! A great example is all the communication we do at work: we have a lot of shorthand for a lot of the work we do. The only time that we really have to break out of that shorthand is when we have to communicate with people outside of our group—and doing so then is quite, quite vital. A lot of buzzwords come from insider shorthand—it’s only bad when it escapes the insiders!

As an example: I’m quite sure that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had his fair amount of shorthand. If nothing else, he was a seminarian, and those folks are prone to the development of lots of conceptualizations that are best expressed in theological terms—on the inside.

But this “buzzwords are always bullshit” stance is, in and of itself, bullshit. If you closely watched the 37Signals Campfire room, I’m more than willing to bet that you’d find a lot of internal shorthand that could, at some point, be buzzworded. [Ruby on Rails, for instance. Rails is their framework, their name for their system. Rails is short, quick, and to the point. But now it's a buzzword. My point exactly.]

When making sweeping statements, be care to note context. This writer failed to adequately do so, which brings about this response.

I’ve been mulling the stem cell funding debate this past week, and here’s where I’ve come to on this:

1. Bush’s veto to deny Federal funding to research on embryonic stem cell research doesn’t mean that the research can’t be performed at all; rather, Federal funds just won’t go towards it.
2. Bush made a mistake in how he pitched this politically: going for the pandering to the right-to-life base [a group that I'm only peripherally part of---I personally don't believe in abortion, but I'm just not that chuffed on what the Federal government allows the citizenry to do, within reason] rather than saying, “My science advisors tell me that very little embryonic stem cell research has shown promise to date. Given the nature of the moral issues involved and the lack of progress on that front, I see no reason to change the Federal government’s stance on funding for this research, when we can choose instead to fund other research areas, such as adult stem cell research, that are producing results today.” Now, you can argue that, perhaps, Federal funding opens the door to embryonic stem cell research producing results, in the “throw enough money at the problem and it’ll work out” kind of way. I get that; I work in the NASA sphere, and that’s how we got to the moon. But Bush is working with a radically strained Federal budget, and he could have pitched this more as a fiscally conservative position rather than a moral stand. But that’s more nuanced than Bush tends to be, for better or worse. [Usually worse, especially as it regards to domestic policy.]
3. Scientists looking for funds on this need to stop looking to the Feds and going after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. With BillG’s money combined with Warren Buffet’s, they have nation-state level funding capabilities. They both have shown a willingness to fund promising technologies that will produce good returns on investment. If you can convince them, maybe you get results and you can kick at the Feds’ door down the line.

Okay, something here for most everyone to assail if they want. Thankfully, you have to have an account to comment. Mmmm … barriers to entry.

Google has pledged to donate $15,000 to the MetaBrainz Foundation, which is the 501(c)3 that backs MusicBrainz. I’m hopeful that two things will result of this:

1. Mayhem gets a fair chunk of time to code on MB and make it lots better. I think this will definitely happen.
2. Google’s clear interest in MB will draw the interests of both donors and users alike. MusicBrainz is something that I very much believe in—I’ve added nearly 300 items to the database [mostly bootlegs]—and I think that it deserves a ton of attention.

Thanks, Google!

Photo courtesy of my dad’s first cousin, Dora, and her husband, Arnold.

Recently, the FL guys had a scheduled downtime that went far longer than they’d expected; as you might expect, not everyone was happy about it. I was among that group, but … I dealt with it. I knew that me being pissed off about it wasn’t going to help matters at all.

Things got fixed, and Alex and Scott addressed everyone’s concerns fairly well. If you read through the replies, you see that most everyone was pretty level-headed about it. Why? I think it’s because Alex and Scott have learned—probably the hard way—that they have to be personable, real, and open with their customers. Now, Alex might be looking at this and blinking a little, but I’d encourage him to read the gamut of responses that he’s made to folks as time’s gone by … and he’d see that his earlier sharp edge has definitely been broken.

Seth Godin’s entry about the culture of dissatisfaction hit home as I considered all this in retrospect:

The problem with this emerging culture, aside from the fact that we’re unhappy all the time, is that it doesn’t give marketers a chance to build products for the long haul, to invest in the processes and products and even operating systems that pay off over time. The problem is that when brands fizz out so fast, it’s hard to invest in anything except building the next hot brand.

Is there an answer?

Talk to people who live in Vegas and you’ll discover that most of the hard-working folks who have been here more than a decade (the cab drivers and the doctors and the rest) aren’t so swayed by the billboards and the promises. Instead, they embrace the qualities that come from relationships. A relationship with a front-line worker (ask for “Bob”) or a relationship with a provider or an organization that has come through for them.

It seems to me that insulation from discontent comes from building a relationship. From real people. Relationships that make us feel counted upon, respected, trusted and valued cut through the ennui of dissatisfaction. We got ourselves into this mess by acting like smart marketers, and as marketers we can get out of it by acting like people.

Consider also the case of Six Apart: back when it was just Ben and Mena, flubs and false starts were greeted with mild dissension and understanding. Then, when the MT3.0 licensing scheme was announced, the growing corporate vail around 6A ended up making the backlash easier to spew.

I think the lesson to be drawn here is damn simple: it pays to stay personal, because it’s a hell of a lot easier to be mad at “the man” than it is any individual. Note that, in every entry I write about FeedLounge, I always write it as “Alex and Scott”. If they keep on being successful, it’ll be because they continue to develop a good product and continue to be personable with their customers.

It’s a hard balance to strike, to be sure—time spent building relationships with customers is not spent quashing bugs or coding features. Users have to accept that the relationship time is fleeting, but they have to work to cultivate as they can, because any relationship is a two-way street. However, I’m fairly convinced that personality trumps commoditization. Hasn’t Apple been teaching us that all these years?

Why are the “high maintenance” and “low maintenance” tags always thrown at women and never at men?

See, honestly, I’m high maintenance. I won’t lie to you. [Well, I would lie to you if you'd let me ... yes, I'd be the worst kind: high maintenance, but pretends he's low maintenance.] I seek approval and affirmation. I can be manipulative. I’m self-aggrandizing and all those really horrible character traits that we associate with being high maintenance. It is not enough for me to know that I’m smart—I have to show you, and I need you to tell me!

Societally, though, we don’t lob the “high maintenance” pejorative at the male of the species. I wonder why…

Those who say that waiting is the hardest part are wrong.

I submit to you, humbly, that not knowing is the hardest part. I’d rather know than not know, but I’m okay with not knowing when I consider that some things are unknowable.

Yes, I’m being cryptic. Sorry. But I know where I’ll be tonight, all right?

Dear Internet Message Board Denizen:

If you’re frustrated with everyone’s inability to realize when you’ve switched from serious to sarcastic to not giving a damn, here’s a hint: your communication skills, they suck.

While this might not be a big deal to you, it is to some of us. It’s not that we’re sensitive [because we are], it’s just because we care.

:sigh:

Love,
Geof

P.S.: Responding with anger? Yeah, that doesn’t help things at all.

I’m always amused as to how often those who clamor for respect do not show it in kind to those from whom they demand it. I have ways of dealing with it, though. Because it amuses me, a selection of quotes on respect:

There is no other way of guarding oneself against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when everyone can tell you the truth, you lose their respect.”

– Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, ch. 23

I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.

– Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

We confide in our strength, without boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it.

– Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Carmichael and Wiliam Short, 30 June 1793

Il n’existe que trois êtres respectables: le prêtre, le guerrier, le poète. Savoir, tuer, et créer.

– Charles Baudelaire, Mon Coeur Mis à Nu [1887], XV

… I’d call Rick’s right now to wish him a Happy Birthday.

I mean, Jess is usually awake at this hour, but Rick? He’s been asleep for two hours.

I think I’ll refrain, though. He could beat me up. [I remember when he was so skinny that this wasn't an issue.]

Happy birthday, buddy. See you at dinner tonight.

I’m a big believer in the following axiom: “If you have to tell someone about one of your qualities as a person, the chances are that you’re lying.”

I believe in that axiom both from observational and personal experience. Case in point: when I went off to school at MSMS, I took the horribly audacious step of posting my ACT score on the wall above my desk in my dorm room. I wanted everyone to see what a smart person I was!!!

Looking back, I can examine my motives: I was entering a highly competitive academic environment, and while I never had any presumption that I’d be the smartest person there, I wanted to be up at the top. That posting was a warning shot across everyone’s bow.

It was also, in two words, incredibly stupid.

I think we see cases of this all the time: people claiming to be lovable when they’re really pretty prickly; people who state their hotness, when their mama had to hang a steak around their neck just to have the neighborhood dogs play with them; one who proclaims himself a great coder when he’s really just a two-bit hacker, et cetera. I mean, it’s pretty clear that the modifier “self-proclaimed” isn’t a positive thing, no?

Self-proclamations are, of late, right up there with rampant abuse of superlatives on the list of things that absolutely, utterly drive me up the wall. In fact, you might say that I consider myself to be the world’s greatest hater of self-proclaimers.

It would be interesting for the WP Links Manager to, upon entry of an URL, go and spider that URL real fast to grab relevant data—info from the <title>, autodiscovering a syndication feed URI, check for links back to the originating site for XFN data…—and dump that into the form for the user’s perusal.

Like, if I put in http://photomatt.net/, it’d spit back:

• Title: Photo Matt » Unlucky In Cards
• Feed URI: http://xml.photomatt.net/feed/
• XFN: acquaintance

All of that data is spot-on, and it would probably keep the user from making a mistake and entering bad data.

Now, you might say, “What’s the bother? It’s not like this data takes long to enter!” But user-entered data always has the propensity for failure, no?

Also, what about the concept of a way to put Image URIs in <head>? Say I provide a banner image for the Indiana Jones School of Management—such a spider could take that URI and grab either the URI or the image itself [stored in a local folder for such a purpose, probably somewhere in wp-content]—and then the whole process of grab, FTP, and data entry is all automated.

My left-leaning friends look at judges who bar kids from having abortions and claim, “This country is getting more and more conservative.”

My right-leaning friends look at judges who want to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Alleigance and claim, “This country is getting more and more conservative liberal.” [Thanks to Chris Hubbs for pointing out my gaffe.]

I look at Congress and my state Legislature and see gridlock over openness in government, accountability and ethics charges, and judicial appointments. I say, “The root of our problem is neither that this country is becoming more conservative nor more liberal; the problem is that it gets more polarized, and that’s because legislators—the ones who’re supposed to foment compromise—are forever punting on their legislative duties to bring forth those compromises, and, being scared, leave case law to the judges. Who are judges? Lawyers who like technicalities.”

When the one moderating force in government—legislative compromise—is forever shit-canned, people run to opposite sides and want to play political Red Rover: caucusing on each side, watching for trial balloons to shoot down and tackle.

Ay me.