Gladwell -- Outliers

Michiko Kakutani wrote a negative review of Malcolm Gladwell's new book Outliers. Kakutani feels that it is little more then a collection of common sense aphorisms. "Much of what Mr. Gladwell has to say about superstars is little more than common sense: that talent alone is not enough to ensure success, that opportunity, hard work, timing and luck play important roles as well."

She criticizes him for what I think is his greatest gift. That is, writing clearly about the solving of complex problems. Writing clearly does not mean that the ideas are in themselves simple, or "common sense." In fact, many of the conclusions Gladwell comes to are counter-intuitive, and require that you get beyond your first impulse.

Near the end of the book Gladwell writes about the findings of Johns Hopkins sociologist Karl Alexander. Here is a link to Alexander's article Lasting Consequences of the Summer Learning Gap. What Alexander finds in his study is that the main problem with the education of low-income students is what happens in the time that they are not in school, most specifically summer vacation. It is not necessarily news that children in these circumstances encounter problems in their home life. What is telling, however, is that Alexander (and by proxy Gladwell) finds that summer vacation is when the gap between low and high to middle-class students solidifies. Low-income students progress even further in a school year then their higher income counterparts.

We can reform education (and to some extent, need to) by changing the curriculum, spending more money on schools, and by hiring better teachers, but none of this will address the main cause of the problem. I use this as an example because it involves facts that we all, for the most part, already know. The conclusion of the report is not complex, yet it is not the conclusion I would have reached using my common sense.

I really hope this show comes back

Ain't no party like my nana's tea party

Educational Debate for the Obama Administration

A friend of mine created the following blog designed create a debate about where educational policy will go for the next administration. I helped him put together it together and will play a role in responding to comments. It is called The National Debate about American Public Education for the 21st Century.

Knowing that the Obama campaign utilized many Web 2.0 applications helped us shape this project. We hope to use those tactics here. I embedded a video below that gives an idea of what Web 2.0 applications are. And if you don't like the video, it at least has a seductive sound. (Also, feel free to ask me any questions you have about the topic).

We were not satisfied with how education was dealt with in the presidential election, and would like to find a way to give more people a voice in determining the direction of educational policy in this country. The only candidate who was really engaged in discussing the educational system was Huckabee. He actually had some good ideas, but he did not last long enough to bring his ideas wider attention. I understand that it is not the pressing issue that people made their decision on, but it is really too important to let slide.

The educational debate blog has a lot of different levels and offers different ways to participate. We do not expect everyone to fully participate, but would love to get as much feedback and discussion as possible. We list a group of big questions on the front page and thought about confining the debate to these big questions. We extended it because we wanted to focus people on the fact that it is the specifics that need to change, as well as the direction and philosophy. Making the necessary changes will requires a more refined approach, actually confronting the specific circumstances that prevent the reform that is necessary (or possibly not).

We will take the feedback from this blog and collate and submit a report to the new education secretary when President Obama takes office. Please feel free to forward to whoever you think might be interested.

I remember that this aired soon

after 9/11. It was scheduled as a tribute to John Lennon at Carnegie Hall, and I pleasantly surprised to stumble upon it on TNT. It ended up serving a duel purpose, as a tribute to both John and New York City.

What makes it good . . .

one thing is that it defies genre.




There is something in Edie that reminds of a younger Loretta Lynn, but that's hard to say because the Loretta below is still bringing it pretty good.

Recommended by a friend . . .

This is better then the songs that made her name -- she finally listened to Letterman and got rid of those pesky Bohemians.

David Brooks

I recently listened to a debate between these two about the nature of conservatism. Brooks had reviewed Sullivan's book, The Conservative Soul and they had an interesting conversation about where conservatism is right now.

I also listened to two podcasts this weekend of Brooks speaking to two different groups, the World Affairs Council of Northern California and at the 2008 Aspen Ideas conference.

Brooks as a political pundit can sometimes make me crazy. I think he forces himself to be the "house" republican when he is commentating at PBS. It is an unnatural role for him and it shows. I don't think that he is really that interested in the horse race aspects of politics, yet that is really what political commentary is all about.

I really enjoy him in other venues (these podcasts). He excels at speaking in a longer forms. He has the time to articulate ideas, and he has a lot of them. He mentions his political affiliation on these podcasts, but if he did not, it would be difficult to guess what it was.

In a way I envy Brooks, Sullivan and other disillusioned conservatives. I believe they will try and reinvigorate their brand of conservatism. To do so will require conversations and debate about new ideas -- or at least a resolve to get back to old ones. It is refreshing to listen to them, and will be interesting to see how they react to the new president.