Average Never Goes Away

Tom Friedman's article in today's NYTimes, Average is Over, 1/25/2011 is an effort to explain a concept which requires a whole lot of change to accept even with the proof all around us.

And this gap between the reality of the situation and our ability recognize the reality of the situation might well define just how long this latest economic downturn continues.

For you see, what Thomas is talking about refers to the idea that no one can any longer afford to be average, but the reality is that there is always average.  Even in a room full of gifted and brilliant people, there is an average of their brilliance, or their ability to work with others, or some (any) factor one wishes to choose.

So there are two problems here butting their heads together without any onlookers who actually understand the totality of it.

One of the problems is "who determines what average is" and will those who don't agree with other's assessments ever be brought around to a new way of thinking.

And herein lies the conflict.

We know that there are things to be done, of which the doing isn't based on some new technologies nor specially acquired knowledge.  Just good plain hard work.

In this case I'm talking about infrastructure, and in our immediate future with our infrastructure crumbling around our knees is the most important of all the items on the list.  And, I might say, one of the last things on that list that will allow for an average worker to do quality work.  None of the other things on our list allow for us to massively employ people with the right skill sets available today other than infrastructure.

I mean this in the sense that, even though there will always be average workers, now is the last time we could actually do a massive project such as infrastructure with the work force we still have left.  From here on we will need to employ an ever growing level of skill sets, for we cannot have the best health care nor the best educated workers in the world if we don't understand that today's skill sets are antiquated.

As pertains to Tom's article, I have watched Tom give his speech about Average is Over in terms of his book "That used to be us", and all of his points are right on target.  Obviously some of his points put the people in the audience into an uncomfortable position because they had never looked at just what was really happening.

However, Thomas is right.  Average is over, but only the average of today.  Tomorrow's average will be in a much higher level of knowledge and somewhat offering its own problems because we will be forcing everyone to excel.  Tomorrow's average will be somewhere in the stratosphere in comparison to today's requirements.

And these are some of the things I've been writing about for years included (at the time) studies conducted by groups of people with multi-disciplinary skills sets.  But even I was wrong.

In tomorrow's world, everyone will be required to have multi-disciplinary skill sets, which means our educational system will have to be extended, somewhat in the length of time studying these disciplines, and in the acceptance that college is no longer a reasonable average.

Average, in the world just around the corner, will be the college graduate.  You know, the ones that can't get jobs right now because they studied one discipline and found out the world doesn't need that skill set.

The new average will be an entirely new group of graduates with Ph.Ds, and not in just one discipline.

This presents its own problem, for we are not prepared to educate enough people to fill the new requirements in skill sets within a reasonable time frame.  Largely we are wasting millions of our young with an education that won't allow them to make the change over at just the time they need to have the education to do so.  And we can no longer waste an entire generation of people by supplying them with unacceptable levels of education.

But one must understand the scale of the situation to understand just how large the problem is.

If we do not support giving everyone in our country the best education they can consume, then we are creating a new "average".  Certainly higher on the educational scale than now, but we actually continue with the "success" of education as we have today.

Again, don't get me wrong.  There will always be an "average".  There is only the difference of where that average will lie, either by giving everyone the best education or we continue to pick and choose those who WILL receive that education, and those our system simply will allow to become the lost part of humanity.

I realize it is a tremendous requirement to give everyone the best education they can absorb, but the alternative, as I've said, is to waste a generation without them even having the option of choice.

Which brings us to the need we really have to fundamentally change our system of education.  When I think back to my youth and education, some of the things that stick out to me are little niggling points, but ones that have continued, over the years, point out the fundamental error of our ways.

One of these things has been our school administration failures to recognize bright students who may have many negative environmental factors which need to be overcome.

I mean, come on, as a student in the 50s and 60s, I've seen lots of smart young ladies who were sidetracked by "guidance counselors" into becoming a teacher if they were exceptionally bright, or into a secretarial position if they weren't the cream of the crop.

What, are there only two possible paths of employment for females, which equates to one half of our population?

Now I'm not saying that all guidance counselors are bad, but I'm saying that the full knowledge of the circumstances weren't taken into consideration, and as such, we effectively left 20 years of bright young minds behind by offering only lackluster careers down to even just popping out babies.

It wasn't until the 70s that we had the Jane Goodalls of my generation.  Today physics is evenly split by gender, but what happened to those young ladies of the 50s and 60s who were talked into giving up on higher education simply because they wouldn't need it.

So what I'm saying is that we have already developed an educational system flawed from the start through the outside force of the education administration, and it continued to get eaten up by creating an average that Thomas says we can't have any longer.

And Thomas is right.  We can no longer teach for average, and we can no longer allow politically motivated educational administrations to create a new average where potential is lost. 

We waste too many lives with vast potential by not educating everyone to their full potential, AND we lose when it comes to competition around the world.

Comments

[Bill Perkins]

"So what I'm saying is that we have already developed an educational system flawed from the start through the outside force of the education administration, and it continued to get eaten up by creating an average that Thomas says we can't have any longer."

Ahh. At last something we can agree on. The only three good things I can think of that have happened to education in the last 30 years is home-schooling, charter schools and education vouchers. None of which the Dept. of Education had anything to do with. In fact, these efforts have had to fight education administration and unions at every level.

Louisiana is attempting to become the largest testing ground for school vouchers as Governor Jindal attempts to take the successful New Orleans program statewide. Good luck fighting the unions on that governor.

The $160 billion the Fed spends on college loans ($125 Bil in 2010) and Pell Grants ($32 Bil in 2010)has accomplished nothing in improved academic performance and standards, but has done much to line the pockets of the so-called educational institutions. Same of
course for K-12 education. When New Jersey spends $29K per student per year but still has schools that are graduating only 30% of their students, there is a problem other than funding.

But I don't think the problem is with women, particularly of our generation, who are now at the end of their working lives. Young women now make up the majority of college graduates. What is happening to the young men?

And by the way, the "new" average includes more college grads, as the government pumps them through with taxpayer support. But the bachelor degree now has become so watered down that it's only an employer's indication of a person's "possible" reasonable intelligence and diligence. It unfortunately doesn't mean they were actually educated. But for certain they're saddled with $20K to $40K of debt whether they can get a job or not. This is a disaster beginning to unfold as young people can't duck these obligations in bankruptcy, but they don't have the ability to earn enough to cover it either. The solution, another taxpayer bailout the Great One has already proposed because the writing is on the wall.