Jeremiah Stanghini

Higher Education is More Like Telecommuting and Less Like Newspapers, Part 1

I came across an interesting article in The American Interest magazine a couple of days ago. It was by way of tweet (as it most often is). This tweet came from one of the professors at George Mason University, Prof. Auerswald. He’s done some really cool stuff, so be sure to check ’em out! The tweet which led me to the article:

“The End of the University as We Know It” bit.ly/ViF718 “First Newspapers, Now Universities“wapo.st/bIxFSI

— Philip Auerswald (@auerswald) December 26, 2012

Intriguing, yes? Well, it was to me, so I proceeded to read the article from the magazine. As for the argument that universities are going the way of the newspaper because of the internet — I don’t necessarily agree with it.

In fact, I think that higher education will go the way of telecommuting more than it will the way of newspapers. What do I mean? Well, telecommuting first became popular last century. It only existed as a possibility from about the 1970s on. By now, you’d expect that lots of people would telecommute, right? Depending on your definition of lots…

This graphic shows that there are only about 3 million total employees who telecommuted in 2011. If I were asked to guess in 1990s how many folks would be telecommuting in the 2010s, I would have guessed waay more than 3 million — as I’m sure most people would.

Higher education — learning — has, for the most part, been an in-person thing. People enroll in university and spend the next 4-5 years living on- (or off-) campus taking classes. In that time, they may also join student organizations, hold internships, and meet a whole bunch of new people. Some of those people become their friends for the rest of their lives.

MOOCs do not have the same qualities of in-person education. Learning online (or on your own) won’t necessarily reap the same benefits of attending university.

I understand the argument and the correlation between newspapers and higher education makes sense, but I just don’t buy it. I don’t believe that higher education will go the same way as Newsweek or other publications. Higher education is more than just the degree. That’s not to say that some consumers won’t choose to go the way of online learning, but I don’t think that it will pull enough folks away from wanting the in-person learning. This is why I think MOOCs and online education is more likely to go the way of telecommuting.

That being said, I do think that MOOCs present a major threat to the higher education market because consumers will perceive it as a shortcut to a degree.

And more than that, I think that advances in telecommuting could shift the way we telecommute — and by extension — higher education. In fact, I remember during the 2008 election, CNN had a “virtual presence” technology wherein one of their guests was somewhere else entirely, but there was a holographic representation of them in the studio (with which Wolf Blitzer was interacting). That was 4 years ago!

I don’t know what happened to that technology (if it’s being developed for commercial use, etc.), but I think that could seriously change the way we interact. I think if that technology were introduced on a larger scale, that would certainly increase the number of telecommuters. Similarly, I think that would have a chance at seriously changing the face of higher education. This technology, assuming it’s “just as good as being there,” would allow folks to be in the comfort of their basements (or virtual presence studio?), while still being at work or in a classroom.

Just as a closing: anything written about the future is inherently flawed. There’s no way to know (for sure) what will happen or won’t happen in the future. So, while these are some predictions or guesses I’m making about the future, they may turn out to be wildly wrong (or surprisingly right).

Note: After writing this, I realized that there were a few more things I wanted to touch on. Look for Part 2 tomorrow!

Colleges Switching Conferences: Markets in Sports

A few weeks ago, 7 teams in the Big East conference voted to remove their men’s basketball teams from the conference. That’s a lot of teams to leave a conference at one time! Truth be told, I’m not an “avid” fan of college basketball, but I do like to catch some games every now and then and like most people, I always keep an eye on March Madness.

When I first heard the news of this happening, the first thing that came to mind: economics.

I never had an economics professor tell me, ‘it’s simply economics!’ but I certainly imagined one telling me this right along with this piece of news. How is it economics? Well, it’s all about markets. Markets? Yes, markets!

In hearing about this, I suspect that the seven teams that voted to leave the conference were noticing all the other teams that were leaving their conferences (in different sports). Many of those teams were moving conferences because of the possibility of more money. There are certain teams that play in certain markets (think: Big Ten) that are able to make a great deal of money for the networks that carry their games (is there any other conference that has its own TV channel?) This is probably why Nebraska joined the Big Ten and probably why Maryland and Rutgers will be joining in 2014.

So, as 7 of the teams that helped to make up the Big East conference in basketball watched as teams like Nebraska, Boise State, and Rutgers moved conferences, I’m sure that this helped to “light a fire” in motivating the teams in the Big East to consider a move.

All that being said, I’m certainly sympathetic to those fans who hate to see these kinds of moves happen. Why? Rivalries are bound to die. In fact, I remember a time when this idea of a team switching conferences ended (or severely hampered!) one of the most famous rivalries in the sport! The Toronto Maple Leafs vs. the Detroit Red Wings.

The Leafs were moved to the Eastern Conference in 1998 and when that happened, the number of times the Leafs and Red Wings played diminished — a lot. I remember being crushed as a kid because Leafs/Red Wings games were a delight to see. Of course, there’s talk of realignment now, which might see the Red Wings/Leafs back in the same conference (or division)!

In looking back at the history, the Leafs did quite a bit of moving around in the 1990s. This was, in part, because the NHL was going through a great deal of change. In fact, with the switch to Eastern and Western Conferences, the Leafs/Red Wings were relegated to the Western Conference, initially, with the understanding that they would (both!) eventually get moved to the Eastern Conference. This change happened in 1993 and five years later, the Leafs did get moved to the East. Although, The Red Wings remain in the Western Conference.

I don’t know if the moving around of teams in college sports is a perfect comparison to those teams being moved around in the NHL, but with rivalries likely to be greatly diminished, I can certainly empathize.

Love it or Hate it: Cloud Atlas is Worth Seeing

A little while ago, I mentioned that I’d seen a bunch of movies recently. One of those movies: Cloud Atlas. I rather liked the movie and think that you should most definitely consider seeing it. I tend to like the kinds of movies that Tom Hanks is in and I thoroughly enjoyed The Matrix trilogy. Yes, Tom Hanks was not in the The Matrix, but two of the directors (there were three) and producers (there were five), also directed/produced The Matrix.

I really like movies that make you think and The Matrix certainly did that. In fact, from Wikipedia:

The Matrix makes numerous references to recent films and literature, and to historical myths and philosophy including Buddhism, Vedanta, Advaita Hinduism, Christianity, Messianism, Judaism, Gnosticism, Existentialism, Nihilism. The film’s premise resembles Plato’s Allegory of the cave, René Descartes‘s evil demon, Kant‘s reflections on the Phenomenon versus theDing an sich, Zhuangzi‘s “Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly“, Marx’s social theory and thebrain in a vat thought experiment. Many references to Jean Baudrillard‘s Simulacra and Simulation appear in the film, although Baudrillard himself considered this a misrepresentation.

A movie that invokes that much has to make you think. In fact, if you get the chance, I’d read the interview between one of the directors of the Matrix (Larry Wachowski) and Ken Wilber, who has done a great deal to forwarding the integral movement.

Anyway, back to Cloud Atlas. The movie weaves together a bunch of different stories and some of the actors overlap between the stories (paying homage to the idea of reincarnation). Some of the stories are quite powerful and address issues that society has struggled with or is still struggling with. There are two quotes that I came across from one of the directors (Lana Wachowski) that I think are worth keeping in mind when reading reviews of this film (or The Matrix, for that matter). Here’s the first:

As soon as they encounter a piece of art they don’t fully understand the first time going through it, they think it’s the fault of the movie or the work of art. They think, [dramatic voice] “It’s a mess.”

“This doesn’t make any sense.” And they reject it, just out of an almost knee-jerk response to some ambiguity or some gulf between what they expect they should be able to understand, and what they understand.

And the second:

There’s really complex ideas in the [Matrix] trilogy. [Laughs.] We think in some ways, it’s the most experimental, complicated trilogy ever made. And it’s frustrating to see people try to will that to not be true. But we know it’s true. And in the same way, people will try to will Cloud Atlas to be rejected. They will call it messy, or complicated, or undecided whether it’s trying to say something New Agey-profound or not. And we’re wrestling with the same things that Dickens and Hugo and David Mitchell and Herman Melville were wrestling with. We’re wrestling with those same ideas, and we’re just trying to do it in a more exciting context than conventionally you are allowed to.

What the Heck is Boxing Day, Anyway?

Seeing as though today’s Boxing Day, I thought I’d offer up an explanation as to the meaning of Boxing Day. Growing up in Canada, I grew to know Boxing Day as the day when all the good sales would happen at stores. For many Americans, this may sound strange. Although, think of it like Black Friday — Boxing Day is much the same — in that stores increasingly compete with each other to open sooner and sooner to have better sales.

So, when I was younger, my thought that Boxing Day got its name because of all the boxes. To a young person, that makes sense. With all the day after Christmas shopping, there’s bound to be lots of boxes! Somewhere along the way, I remember someone telling me, ‘oh no, that’s not it. It’s because there was a big boxing match back in the day.’ Well that sounds plausible, too. Although, after having searched the internet, I don’t seem to find any solid references to a boxing match on “Boxing Day,” leading to the day getting its name.

Regardless of the etymology, Boxing Day is most certainly a holiday in Canada (and some other Commonwealth countries) and that’s because it derives from European tradition. It does seem, though, that there isn’t any one definitive answer. According to Wikipedia (and many other places I found in researching for this post):

The exact etymology of the term “boxing” is unclear. There are several competing theories, none of which is definitive.

One of those competing theories has it that the lord of the manor would “pay” its servants with boxes of practical goods (food, clothes, etc.). This starts to make more sense when we realize that a “Christmas Box” is like saying “Christmas Present.” So, it’s almost as if “Boxing Day” was the day that the bourgeoisie would “exchange” gifts with the proletariat. That may be taking a bit too far, but it certainly seems like it.

So… while I can’t give you a definitive answer, some of the things out there on the internet certainly seem plausible as to why it’s called “Boxing Day.” One thing it seems we can say for sure — it wasn’t because of a big “boxing match.”

Five Years, Five Christmases: You Never Know Where You’ll Be…

As 2012 draws closer to its end, I find myself reflecting on the past. Not the distant past, but the recent past. In fact, with Christmas here today, I found myself reflecting on the last 5 Christmases and just how much things have changed for me over those 5 Christmases. Let’s journey back, shall we?

2008

At Christmas in 2008, I was on reprieve between quarters of the first year of my PhD in clinical psychology (obviously, I didn’t continue with that route). For that Christmas, I left the balmy shores of San Francisco for a flight home to visit my family in Toronto and Detroit. It was a great time.

2009

In 2009, I was in Victoria, British Columbia living on a floathome. My partner and I had just recently come back from New Zealand and decided to spend some time living in the floathome that we had for sale. For that Christmas, my partner and I accepted an invitation to have Christmas dinner with some of the folks living on the Wharf. This particular family had invited a bunch of folks over, so there were like 20+ people inside of this one floathome having Christmas dinner!

2010

The Christmas of 2010 was one that I won’t soon forget, partly because I was just recently married, but probably more so because I spent it on one of the top 10 beaches in the world — on the island of Kauai (in Hawaii). My wife and I got up early on Christmas morning and we went down to Hanalei Bay. The exquisite backdrop of the mountains paired with the sound of the gentle waves kissing the shore… amazing.

2011

In 2011, my wife and I drove up to visit our families in Ottawa/Toronto. If I recall correctly, we spent Christmas in Ottawa visiting with family and friends. It was a rocking good time and makes me consider Ottawa as a place that I might like to live.

2012

And now, 2012. This year, my wife and I have decided to *stay* in Fairfax, VA. I wrote stay like that because it’s not as if we’ve lived in Fairfax for very long (only since August), but we have been in the DC area for over a year now, with me finishing up an MBA.

If you would have asked me in 2008 about any of the subsequent Christmases, I almost assuredly wouldn’t have been able to guess how any of them turned out. Victoria!? HAWAII!? FAIRFAX!!? Who knows where I’ll be for Christmas in 2013. Wherever I am, I hope I’m happy and surrounded by people that I love.

Enjoy the rest of your day!

Quick Update: Many More Categories!

Just a quick update… When I first started writing for Genuine Thriving, I had read that it was important to not have too many categories (especially when you’re starting out). As a result, I stuck to about 10 or 11 different categories. Now that I’ve written over 200 posts, I thought I’d look at some of the more popular tags, to see if any ‘categories’ might have emerged from them. It turns out, there is! I found a number of tags that I thought worthy of their own category, so you’ll see a number of new categories in the list.

I felt that some of these categories were subcategories of other categories. So, you’ll see the “Wisdom” categories has “Perspective” and “Fresh Perspective” under it. That’s because I think that these categories belong to the bigger category of wisdom. Quotes certainly makes sense as a subcategory of history as does ethics a subcategory of philosophy (and Twitter of technology). I put psychology under science (and I’m sure some folks who strongly disagree!), but after having studied psychology for 6+ years, I certainly think it’s a science.

Lastly — education. I thought about putting it under science (or) philosophy, but it didn’t quite seem to fit. So for now, it’ll be it’s own category. If you’re looking for where the “categories” appear on this page, scroll down a bit and look at the sidebar on the right-hand side. You should see them. Hope you enjoy!

Every Child is Gifted: Why Nurturing is so Important

I came across an op-ed in the NYT from September arguing that, in America, there is too much focus on raising the floor (of education) and not enough focus on raising the ceiling. Meaning, there’s more focus on bringing up the “weaker” kids and not much focus on the “stronger” kids. I was fortunate enough to be born and raised in the Greater Toronto Area, so during my formative years, I was in school in Ontario (Canadian education, from what I remember, is known for being better than American education).

The op-ed goes on to describe how it is for those young students who are really smart, but because they go to public school, are prevented from getting the kind of education that will challenge/inspire them. Again, I didn’t do my K-12 education the US, so all I’ve got to go on is what I’ve heard/read. I do remember seeing Waiting for Superman and that painted a rather dire picture for some States).

The op-ed’s main thesis is that there needs to be a focus on these high-potential kids. Because their parents didn’t have the funds to afford private education doesn’t mean they should be prevented from getting a solid education.

I think that’s an argument that most people would agree with — to some extent. I’d like to make a different point, though.

It might seem a bit clichéd to say that, “every child is gifted,” but this is something that I truly believe. How? We are all gifted in a different way. Some folks may be more talented in kinesthetic activities and some may be more talented in musical activities. I certainly think that we all have the capacity to develop these talents, but I also think that some folks are born with a predisposition to certain talents. (I don’t know that I agree with it fully, but Gardner’s multiple intelligences is a good starter for what I’m talking about.)

So, if we’ve got all of these predispositions to talents, how come they don’t necessarily show up? Well, I would argue that it’s nurturing. Parenting is a monumental responsibility. Caring for and nurturing a little being is one of the noblest things one can do. I won’t go too deep into parenting philosophy in this post, but suffice to say, I think a great deal of responsibility falls on the parents to nurture those talents within their kids (major caveat: like there are predispositions to talents, I don’t doubt that there are also predispositions to “non”-talents that might make nurturing a bit more difficult). I’m not here to criticize how some people parent, but I do want to emphasize that all children are talented. It may just take a little extra effort to ferret out those talents, if the child had not been nurtured in a way that allows the child to be comfortable/confident in those talents.

When Was the Last Time You Listened to the Radio?

This evening I spent a little time at a friend’s house, looking in on her cat. As an aside here, cats are great! In amidst the playing with the cat, the radio was on. The radio was on when I got there and I left it on when I left (as instructed). After playing with the cat for a while, I sat down on the couch and listened to the radio for a little bit.

While usually not an experience worth noting, this one was. NPR was playing and because it was the weekend, it wasn’t the usual NPR-programming I was used to hearing during the week when I have NPR on in the car. In fact, listening the radio inside the house is an altogether different experience than listening to NPR in the car. In fact, outside of this evening, I can’t remember the last time I listened to the radio inside the house (and wasn’t doing something else at simultaneously).

Anyway, NPR was talking to bright young musicians. When I say young, these folks were still in high school, but they had some incredible stories. The thing I want to point out: I was forced to imagine the conversation between the host and the guest… and imagine the audience, too (as they were in front of an audience). This is something that I rarely have to do (because I don’t listen to the radio unless I’m in the car).

Two things I want to note about this experience:

1) It made listening the radio a much richer experience. That is, I was forced to use my imagination to fill in the holes as to the facial reactions by the guest and the host and fill in the space of what the audience might be doing, too. As I said, this is something I don’t have to do very often.

2) It made me think about what it might have been like for people before there was TV. Huddling around the radio together used to be a common family activity. It’d be hard to conduct this study, but I wonder what the data would show based on those folks who had to do more imagining (before there was TV) vs. those folks who don’t have to do imagining (because there is TV). I wonder if the “before there was TV” group might have more developed imaginations.

Three Lessons from The Hobbit: On Doing What You Can, Having Faith, and Demonstrating Leadership

A few days ago, I went and saw The Hobbit. (Really liked the HFR, by the way.) I don’t remember if I read The Hobbit in high school, (my guess is not), so the story was completely new to me (aside from being a good representation of the hero’s journey) — just as The Lord of the Rings was when I watched the three movies. (Trivia: LOTR is not a trilogy, even though it is often referred to as such.)

Anyway, as I was watching, there were a few instances I noticed that could serve as quintessential lessons. Given that The Hobbit is a good example of the hero’s journey, it’s not surprising that there’d be great lessons to be found in the story. Of course, if you haven’t seen the movie…

*SPOILER ALERT*

The three instances I’m going to share all happen within — essentially — the same scene. If you’ve seen the movie (or read the book), you’ll probably know what I’m talking about.

The first instance comes courtesy our good friend — Bilbo Baggins. It takes place right near the end of the film when Bilbo, Gandalf, and the dwarves are stuck in the tree. Gandalf and the dwarves set the trees on fire to scare off Azog and the Orcs, but it doesn’t work. Thorin (who is to be the leader of the dwarves), descends from the tree to try to fight with Azog. As was to be expected, Azog dominates Thorin and Thorin is about to die. Bilbo — seeing this — and noticing that no one else in the trees looks like they’ll be able to help, descends from the tree to come to Thorin’s rescue to stave off imminent death.

So, the instance that I’m talking about is Bilbo doing what he could do at the time. He knew there was no way for him to be able to take on all the Orcs by himself, but it was clear, in the moment, he was the only one that could have saved Thorin from death. Bilbo had to have faith that by him doing what he did, the other dwarves could then free themselves from the tree and then come to the rescue of Thorin and Bilbo.

Lesson #1: Even though you can’t see how things will turn out, it’s important to do what you can in the moment.

The second instance also comes from this scene. While the dwarves are stuck in the tree, Gandalf catches a butterfly and whispers to it. This proves important because after Bilbo saves Thorin from Azog, a group of eagles comes to the aid of the dwarves. The eagles pick up the dwarves in their talons or swoop them onto their backs and fly off with them. While this is happening, most of the eagles are pulling the dwarves from the tree. Gandalf wasn’t pulled from the tree. In fact, he was the last one to be rescued from the tree and he wasn’t even rescued. As the tree’s roots are being pulled up from the ground, Gandalf has to jump off the cliff… and have faith that one of the eagles will fly by and pick him up. Of course, he did — and an eagle did.

Lesson #2: Even though you can’t see what’s in front of you, sometimes you have to have faith… and jump!

The last instance occurs afte the eagles have dropped off the dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf far from the clutches of the Orcs. While on this rock, Thorin says something to the group (and Bilbo), about the fact that he should never have taken him on this quest. And then he says something to the effect of, ‘I’m so glad I was wrong.’ I may have the wording or the bits and pieces of this wrong, but the point I wanted to highlight here is that Thorin was wrong, he knew it, and he admitted it.

Lesson #3: When you’re wrong, don’t be afraid to say so.

If You’re a Senior Executive and You’re Not on Twitter, You’re Doing It Wrong

I’ve seen a number of articles in the past 12 months (here’s one, and another, and another still) that discuss CEO’s and social media. Of the three I pointed to in the previous sentence, two are for and one is against. On the whole, I think the majority of what I’ve read in the popular press is that CEOs should be on social media. There are a number of good reasons (know your market, humanizing your brand, appearance of accessibility, etc.), but I learned of an externality last week.

When I was at the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) event, I was with a number of staff at George Mason University. Our aim at this event was to share positive things about Mason, which is one of the purposes of AI. During this sharing, it was possible to overhear conversations of other groups around the room (especially when there was a pause/lull in my group’s discussion). In a couple of these silences, I overheard groups talking about the President of George Mason University — Angel Cabrera — who is known for, among other things, being on Twitter.

In fact, a couple of these people who were talking about it, mentioned that this was the reason that they joined Twitter — just so that they could follow the President! And this isn’t the only time that I’ve heard of faculty/staff joining Twitter just to see what the President was saying. While these pockets of people saying this may not be a representative sample, it certainly seems like it might be the beginning of a trend, or at least something that’s worth noticing.

In a couple of the articles I mentioned in the opening paragraph, the authors specifically point to social media being a way for CEOs to connect with their employees. After hearing about these folks at Mason who joined Twitter just for President Cabrera, I can see other benefits, too. Once these folks are on Twitter, they may be more likely to follow other conversations and continue their learning/development. But more than that — for the company/brand/organization/school, these employees will be showing potential customers/employees another window into the workings of the company/organization. That may have been a confusing sentence. By being on Twitter, these employees could offer a window of what it’s like on the inside.

So, while there are obvious benefits of CEOs partaking in social media, I think it’s important to point out some of the externalities that result from CEOs being on Twitter — namely — their employees joining Twitter. As you’ll notice in the title of this post, I would argue that senior executives should join Twitter, so not just the CEO (or President, in the case of George Mason University). In fact, at George Mason University, you’ll find that President Cabrera isn’t the only senior executive on Twitter. Mason’s Provost (Peter Stearns) is on Twitter, the Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences (Jack Senser) is on Twitter, the Dean of the College of Education and Human Development is on Twitter (Mark Ginsberg), etc.

So — if you’re a senior executive, make your way to social media — now! And for all the employees out there, head on over to social media to check and see if your company’s/organization’s senior executives are on Twitter… you never know.