Author: Joseph Thibault

Under a rock, the size of the universe

Apparently I’ve been missing out.  Until yesterday I hadn’t been aware of Carl Sagan and his books, shows and contributions to science (I blame my local PBS station).  I’m going to catch up on all the great reading content Carl has out there (starting with The Demon-Haunted World).  but I’ve also been watching a bunch of his Cosmos videos that are archived online.  EXCELLENT stuff.

And now, for my new favorite song by Carl Sagan feat. Stephen Hawking “A glorious dawn”.   I hope someone auto-tunes me posthumously.  Go to it!

Relatively Disconnected

There’s this little company out there, making big changes.  You might have heard of it.  It’s called “Facebook”.  In fact, you might even be reading this post within Facebook (I just blew my mind).

They’ve burned 700 million dollars in venture cap and dominate the social networking scene (the only other company with growth potential in terms of social networking, in my opinion, is Ning.com).  They’re simultaneously waging wars against Google (hoping to reshape search) and Twitter (adding live feeds and real time data aggregation); and on each front it seems that they’re winning.  That being said they also have something like 500 billion users (according to Wolfram Alpha).  Ok, so they are almost the size of the USA (250,000,000 users).  So less than 4% of the world is on Facebook.  They don’t seem that big anymore do they?

It must be Mark’s goal to sign up every single person (over the age of 13 of course) in the world. And apparently they’re working at it very hard.  When they do it (I don’t think it’s an “if”) it’ll be a momentous occasion: for the 1st time in the history of mankind everyone will be linked by a common technology/platform.

Then what?

Student Load vs. Teacher Quality

The debate continues.  As a master’s student at UVM my thesis focused on Vermont’s historical trends in educations which contributed to and set the stage for our high ranking public school system (at the time, according to certain resources).  I placed particular emphasis on the fact that Vermont’s long standing traditions and demographic arrangements had contributed to very small class sizes (the pupil to teacher ratio is still around 10:1, one of the lowest in the nation).  Subsequently this also means that VT has one of the most expensive education system on a per pupil basis in the country as well.

It’s nice to think that Vermont has the best public education system in the country, but that’s hotly debated with each of the number of sides, resources, experts, etc. pointing to a diverse array of statistics: class size, student achievement, teacher pay, graduation rate, unemployment, etc.  It all depends how you define “outcomes”.

I’ve been swayed from my original assertion that VT had it good because of the low class size (which was more caused by geography and population density than any public initiative).  And it seemed that a lot of other individuals had been too, even Bill Gates who threw a lot of money behind the small schools movement has largely backed away from it.

In my opinion, the debate swung to teacher quality and effectiveness and is partially being driven by Michelle Rhee and others (the question of merit pay has also been wrapped into this discussion, though I think that effectiveness/quality is and should be the focus).  There are plenty of questions remaining (like how to measure effectiveness in real time, rather than retroactively) but I like where the debate is going.

It’s interesting to see though that the Total Student Load theory¹ is still getting attention.  Could it be both?  From personal experience, it was much harder to get lost in a small class (just think back to your senior seminar courses in college).  But from the other side I can also remember big classes where the teacher was awesome and their instruction was lasting.  It’s no wonder we can’t make up our minds.

¹note that the article might be password protected at Edweek.org, but it’s basically a write up on William G. Ouchi and his new book The Secret of TSL.  If you really want to read up on class size and the debate against it, Eric Hanushek’s research is well known in education as an opponent to the class size argument (he says it’s bunk).

Quote – Jay Keasling

“We have got to the point in human history where we simply do not have to accept what nature has given us” – Jay Keasling C.E.O. of the Department of Energy’s new Joint BioEnergy Institute (from The New Yorker Magazine article “A Life of It’s Own” by Michael Specter)

In regards to the manufacturing of biological entities in order to advance human industrial, commercial and biological ends.

Put a helmet on before he blows your mind.  Read the full article (mind you it’s a tad long, but that’s why the New Yorker is great) here.

More with Less (or why I made a bacon bit sandwich for lunch)

As a college student I discovered this on hungry weekends late at night, or when the university stores were closed: as my food supply dwindled, the complexity in recipe and my overall willingness to experiment with new food pairings increased.

It’s come around again.  I work from home, don’t have my car with me currently (it’s 3,000 miles away) and I’m doing my best to be thrifty.  Therefore my food stores are limited to say the least.  When there’s plenty of food around I find myself gravitating to the quick and substantial.  Honestly I eat a burrito/taco (or some simple beans + meat + cheese) variation 5-7 days a week for at least one meal.

But as supplies dwindle I become a lot more adventuresome.

Special K with Berries and Tuna?  Part of a complete breakfast/lunch!

No mayo?  No worries: tuna-ranch salad.

Two slices of bread and no meat?  Bacon bit sandwich to the rescue!

Cottage and Parmesan Cheese never tasted better together.

I know that some of these menu items sound gross, and I doubt I would voluntarily mix them with a fully stocked fridge and pantry.  But I have created some tasty treats with limited supplies.  For example here’s a great recipe I cooked up with 4 ingredients and an empty kitchen:

Lemon Pepper Shrimp and Spaghetti for 1-2

5-15 Shrimp, thawed in cold water

1/2 lemon or a few table spoons of lemon juice

1-2 servings of pasta, prepared

fresh ground pepper

Put the shrimp in a skillet with some butter or oil and start to saute, crack fresh pepper (a good amount) and squeeze or add the lemon.  Cook until just before the shrimp are cooked and remove from the burner (otherwise the shrimp will overcook).  Add to the prepared pasta, you’ll find that the lemon juice is a nice light acidic sauce for the noodles.  Parm if you have it (but don’t add cottage cheese).

That’s not too riské, (shrimp and pasta are a good fit generally) but the point is that limiting resources can lead to some great outcomes in cuisine (and some unorthodox mixes, afterall how do you think someone figured out Vinegar Pie?

As an aside (somewhat related), in business I’ve often found myself able to do much more with less.

  • less programming power = better end product;
  • less money/time gets the focus on the right parts of the project;

Fewer resources aren’t always a negative.  I am very surprised what simple aspirations and two guys can put together and produce (though it does help that one is an awesome programmer).

All you can learn for $99 a month

Buffet-style education?  Heck yeah.  The company is probably one you’ve never heard of (I hadn’t) but I already see it’s value and foundation: efficiency + quality + freedom = a better way for motivated learners to get degrees.  The company is StraigtherLine (based in DC) and it provides a carte blanche approach to education for a low monthly fee.  Partnering with colleges around the US for accreditation, it can eschew the rigors of meeting an accreditation but also provide credits as part of the monthly fee (I’m guessing that they assume students will average a certain number of days per course, ensuring their ability to cover course credit costs per student per course passed).

This model has its detractors and rightly so.  This is a major shakeup of the status-quo in American style (which in a sense is the global standard) higher education.  It’s a bet that 100s of millions–perhaps billions–of dollars are caught up in the system, an inefficiency brought forth by the “college amenity package” which currently consists of A/C dorms, game rooms, student centers, weekend trips, free internet, student clubs and activities, research grants, etc.  The whole shebang which constitutes the contemporary college experience.

That being said, I have to agree with the Washington Monthly‘s take on the so-called ‘education bubble’ (see a few earlier posts about this as well);

It’s tempting in such circumstances to take comfort in the seeming permanency of our colleges and universities, in the notion that our world-beating higher education system will reliably produce research and knowledge workers for decades to come. But this is an illusion. Colleges are caught in the same kind of debt-fueled price spiral that just blew up the real estate market. They’re also in the information business in a time when technology is driving down the cost of selling information to record, destabilizing lows. (Washington Monthly – “College for $99 a Month” pg 1)

It makes perfect sense that the arrival of ubiquitous, free information paired with easier to access internet connectivity means that costs will be driven down (what doesn’t make sense is that, until now, colleges have largely bucked the trend, charging what they want and increasing those charges at higher than justifiable rates):

Colleges charge students exorbitant sums partly because they can, but partly because they have to. Traditional universities are complex and expensive, providing a range of services from scientific research and graduate training to mass entertainment via loosely affiliated professional sports franchises. To fund these things, universities tap numerous streams of revenue: tuition, government funding, research grants, alumni and charitable donations. But the biggest cash cow is lower-division undergraduate education. (pg 3)

So what happens when that bottom falls out?  If Straighterline.com is marginally successful then there’ll be rivals partnering with as many accredited colleges offering the same programs.  Those colleges might even court several low cost providers to hedge their bets.  The unaccredited low-cost providers will cut out an entire swath of inefficiency (freshman lectures) leaving a gaping whole in university and college enrollments (cause those students will just pay the couple of hundred bucks and transfer in the max credits).  Where a university or college might have garnered $9000 from a student before (for 3 classes let’s say) the student now pays a few 100 and gets a jump start for him/herself and a bonus in his/her checkbook.  Colleges and universities will become leaner.  They’ll be forced to realize their competitive advantage and adopt a laser like focus to milk as much dough as they can from it (this is a positive in my humble opinion).

Honestly, this already exists for a lot of states that are smart about tiering their education: California is perhaps my favorite example.  As a “freshman” I can go to Community College (Santa Barbara has a particularly beautiful and esteemed on), I can finish 2 years of college (60 credits+!) and use them at any UC school in the state.  The total cost? 1200 bucks plus student fees (which includes a bus pass).  That being said, SBCC is hugely subsidized by the state.  So really, if a private company can do it profitably is that so wrong when a state can only do it by losing money?  Remember that CA just struggled to figure out a 44 billion dollar deficit.  Maybe outsourcing these courses to Straighterline  (instead of subsidizing them) could have saved some time, effort and money.

Related posts:

Ben Franklin sucked at advertising

For being a pioneer in printed news papers (creating one of the first papers in PA and infamously publishing Poor Richard’s Almanac), Ben Franklin, in all modern measurements, sucked at ad-copy.  I might go so far as to say that he would have been canned by any current magazine, newspaper or even blog for the wordy ads he put out.

Of course, back in the day (circa 1755) his long winded “advertisements” were the norm (perhaps even cutting edge) but these days any reader would probably just stop reading after the first line…see if you can make sense of this ad he ran in 1755 seeking to hire horses and carriages for General Braddock (who was “stateside” to protect the colonies from the belligerent French–obviously before they became the war-dodging country they are today.  Brush up on the French-Indian War here).

ADVERTISEMENT. — LANCASTER, April 26, 1755.

Whereas, one hundred and fifty waggons, with four horses to each waggon, and fifteen hundred saddle or pack horses, are wanted for the service of his majesty’s forces now about to rendezvous at Will’s Creek, and his excellency General Braddock having been pleased to empower me to contract for the hire of the same, I hereby give notice that I shall attend for that purpose at Lancaster from this day to next Wednesday evening, and at York from next Thursday morning till Friday evening, where I shall be ready to agree for waggons and teams, or single horses, on the following terms, viz.:

1. That there shall be paid for each waggon, with four good horses and a driver, fifteen shillings per diem; and for each able horse with a pack-saddle, or other saddle and furniture, two shillings per diem; and for each able horse without a saddle, eighteen pence per diem.

2.  That the pay commence from the time of their joining the forces at Will’s Creek, which must be on or before the 20th of May ensuing, and that a reasonable allowance be paid over and above for the time necessary for their travelling to Will’s Creek and home again after their discharge.

3. Each waggon and team, and every saddle or pack horse, is to be valued by indifferent persons chosen between me and the owner; and in case of the loss of any waggon, team, or other horse in the service, the price according to such valuation is to be allowed and paid.

4. Seven days’ pay is to be advanced and paid in hand by me to the owner of each waggon and team, or horse, at the time of contracting, if required, and the remainder to be paid by General Braddock, or by the paymaster of the army, at the time of their discharge, or from time to time, as it shall be demanded.

5.  No drivers of waggons, or persons taking care of the hired horses, are on any account to be called upon to do the duty of soldiers, or be otherwise employed than in conducting or taking care of their carriages or horses.

6.  All oats, Indian corn, or other forage that waggons or horses bring to the camp, more than is necessary for the subsistence of the horses, is to be taken for the use of the army, and a reasonable price paid for the same.

Note.–My son, William Franklin, is empowered to enter into like contracts with any person in Cumberland county.
B. FRANKLIN. (From the Dailylit.com version of Ben Franklin’s Autobiography)

No way that could be a Google Ad.  The 425 words/2300 characters are a far cry from meeting Google or Twitter standards, but if Ben had asked, I could have helped him trim it down.  Here’s the same ad as it might have been formatted for the internet-age.

Google Search Ad:

franklingoogle

Twitter Post:

franklintwitter

And finally Facebook:

franklinfacebookFair?  Not really.  Fun?  Certainly.  Franklin probably would have been a media powerhouse today (he was in his own time, amassing a fortune by 40 just through smart printing and by staying sharp).  Perhaps we can take a hint from his eloquent, flowing writing style.  Sure it’s formal, but it’s cordial and personal at the same time.  Which says a lot more than the ad samples above.

That being said, I don’t think many people answered his original ads.  After that “ad” appears in his book he talks about how he had to publish a warning to the people of PA after letting them know that the Brits would take their horses and wagons by force (since they had already asked so nicely and offered to pay).

Craigslist for all mankind.

Newly Ancient (a web idol of mine) posted recently about a WIRED article concerned with Craigslist. I tried to comment over there but it seems the form is not working properly.

Here’s Morgante’s original post:

Wired has published an in-depth article about Craigslist that exposes the peculiar personality of the site, and its founder. I have never been a fan of Craigslist — its usability is terrible. The Craiglist management has a somewhat hypocritical stance. Supposedly, the site is simple because business growth isn’t a priority; it’s all about the users. Yet those same users (or potential ones) complain about how backwards the site is, with extremely poor technology running it. Worst yet, Craigslist actively discourages innovation by not offering any kind of API to external clients. Hopefully, just as newspaper classifieds were defeated by newer media, Craiglist will eventually fall to companies willing to innovate.

Here’s what I wanted to say:

I gotta disagree. In the current state of our economy I think it’s great that a little company with lots of users and specific ideals doesn’t just want to squeeze it’s users for money.

The draw of CL is that it’s free and it’s owners consider it a public/community asset, not an ATM for planes and cars and houses. Instead of innovating their focusing on providing consistent, quality service (so what if the site looks dumpy, I’ve found and sold many a material good, roommate, apartment–and the same can be said for any level of user).

I don’t think another company will come and knock CL off, and I think that’s a positive. Newmark will go down as one of the most influential web-men of the 20th and 21st centuries because of these little quirks that people misconstrue as weaknesses. I think it’s great that he is content with what he’s created and applies his waking hours to help it grow, interact with it’s users and, in his opinion, make the world a better place.

It flies in the face of conventional business thinking, that’s for sure.  But the CL mantra and way of doing business, perhaps, is an important lesson in this day and age of government bailouts.

Rhee's new plan: "D.C. Public Schools Teaching and Learning Framework"

I’m a big fan of the reforms happening in DC.  I like it for a lot of reasons (it’s cutting edge, it’s gutsy, it’s far reaching implications, etc.) but mostly because Michelle Rhee has vision (and the cajones) to bring her ideas to fruition.

The Wapo recently wrote an article about how Rhee expects to measure teacher success, which is by and large the biggest obstacle of the reform.  It’s easy to say that the best teachers will be retained and the worst kicked to the curb or rehabilitated through professional development, harder to actually say which teachers are which and why.

Rhee’s new report/plan, which apparently is 200 pages (put together in part by an educational consulting firm from the District–note the copy I found online is only 50 pages…), outlines how teacher success will be measured.  It touches on several aspects of the evaluation:

  • new regular assessments by principals and other staff
  • how many times student outbursts are permissible (in a set period of time) – good teachers have control of their classrooms
  • the number of minutes that can be wasted in any 30 minute period (3.  Over that and it’s obvious the teacher isn’t well prepped)

I perused the copy I found online and found the insights and directives incredibly easy to follow (honestly, from reading the document I think ANYONE could be a better teacher).  It’s succinct, easy to digest and reads like a “how to” instead of a “do this or else”.  In fact, the document clearly outlines expectations, how one might accomplish them and “what excellence looks like”.  What else could a teacher ask for?

But if I were just getting my info. from the Wapo article and I were a DC teacher I might be shaking in my booties.  It doesn’t paint a very favorable (in my opinion) picture of the reforms that will affect measuring teacher success.  It’s more of a punch list of changes, including the fact that the number of students is increasing at the same time these new criteria are being imposed.

The situation in DC is a challenge in the simplest sense of the word.  That being said, I would also be thinking to myself that measuring these new criteria is a MONUMENTAL task: possibly involving huge amounts of qualitative observation and coding (just like the kind I did as a student in Graduate School at Syracuse University) in order to get a handle on whether or not the teachers are meeting expectations.

I’ll be watching this unfold in interest.

“D.C. Public Schools Teaching and Learning Framework,”

Aside from the assessment of teacher quality and effectiveness, I think that some really great changes were also highlighted by the Wapo and these come in the form of disciplinary revisions.  At least some of the anecdotal evidence of educational reform concedes that setting up the right culture for learning can have a positive influence on student achievement (and maybe even teacher effectiveness), just look at KIPP.  The revisions specifically target for what and when students can be suspended for.

BEFORE: students could be suspended for simple dress code violations

AFTER: students can only be suspended for situations like cheating, bullying and other such violations

The old code permitted suspension for such an array of offenses that the punishment lost any real meaning, officials said. Principals were allowed to send students home for dress code violations, which is not permitted under the new rules.

According to the most recent available data, suspensions grew from 1,303 in 2006 to 2,245 in 2008 — a 72 percent increase. School officials say that removing students from school only puts them behind in class and can lead to truancy and trouble with the justice system. (from page 2)

Let’s hope that the superficial, cultural changes like that above can make a huge difference so that districts aren’t forced to hire observers to code their every classroom activity/action.

Fred Rogers on Copyright

From Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture, Mr. Rogers talking about how he believed VCRs would have positive technological impacts on his audience and show:

Fred Rogers, aka “Mr. Rogers,” for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.

“Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the “Neighborhood” at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it’s a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the “Neighborhood” off-the-air, and I’m speaking for the “Neighborhood” because that’s what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family’s television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been “You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.” Maybe I’m going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important.” [23]

23. Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR.