I know. I’ve moved before.
But this one is OFFICIAL and FINAL!
This blog is moving permanently to http://www.TheWorldIsYourCampus.com
You’ll find all of this stuff over there, PLUS a very exciting announcement soon about the book, the title, and the publisher.
Head on over there right now! http://www.TheWorldIsYourCampus.com
First off, let me say that if you have the money and/or the leverage (legacy, prof, whatever) to get your kid into a top private high school or Ivy League college AND–this is important–your kid is totally into it and really, really, really wants to go, then by all means, go that route. That’s your choice.
But if sending your kid to that top school requires leveraging your mortgage, your retirement and your time to spend with your family in order to cast your student into a more elite and rigourous climate, I’d think twice. Or maybe three times.
Here’s the thing: you can get a great education in any number of ways, and it doesn’t have to cost a fortune. In fact, those who are willing to be innovative are going to fare well no matter where they head. And it’s worth pointing out that innovation is going to trump “paper power” (brand-name universities, top GPA/SAT scores, number of AP courses taken) at the end of the day. Sure, that first job (or two) out of the Ivy might be higher up the scale than those of the state-school classmates, but after that, things have an interesting way of shifting.
If what you want for your student is creatively challenging work that becomes lucrative as well as fulfilling, then those student loans might be the biggest obstacle of all.
The Wall Street Journal published an article and an accompanying page packed full of interesting comments from those who’ve attended Ivies, private schools, and public schools. It’s fascinating to read the comments from parents and students and to see how easily it is to get caught up in doing things the “right” way without even considering any creative options.
Fear–and ego–tend to get in the way of creative thinking. 
Check out the comments here.
Bob Compton, the executive producer of the education documentary, Two Million Minutes, just posted on his blog about Senator Barack Obama’s screening of the movie.
Nice photo of the two of you, Bob!
Senator Obama is the first of the presidential candidates to see the film. Let’s hope that ALL of them take the time to see it while they’re on the campaign trail.
Obama focuses his education plan on support for teachers and an emphasis on early childhood education.
Plenty of progressive educators–and smart business people–are praising Senator Obama’s education proposal. Read more here.
I’ve a big Leonardo da Vinci fan and I thoroughly enjoyed Michael J. Gelb’s book, How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci.
And so I was delighted to reread this great post that appeared a few months back on the Wandering Ink blog written by Kris Bradburn who is, remarkably, a member of the under-20 set.
It’s a very insightful look at ten characteristics of genius and how we are systematically eliminating opportunities to develop them.
Though I heartily encourage you to visit the site and read this great post called ”How To Prevent Another Leonardo da Vinci” here, I’ve taken the liberty of offering it here. Thanks, Kris, for this outstanding piece.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
This is how we kill each trait that may yield another Da Vinci:
1. Curiosita (from “How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci”)
What? Intense and insatiable curiosity; constantly learning due to a desire to ask and answer questions
The Murder: In schools, for the most part, students learn only what the teacher decides they will learn. Student questions will often go unanswered if they lead away from the material (go off-topic), or if there are time constraints on what must be learned that leave no time for these questions in class.
2. Dimostrazione (from “How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci”)
What? Constant testing of knowledge through experience and persistence; accepting of and learning from mistakes
The Murder: Except in the sciences (and sometimes even then), knowledge is simply given and expected to be absorbed rather than questioned and tested. On tests and labs, wrong answers cost the students their grades, therefore it becomes unacceptable to make mistakes. Mistakes are less about learning experiences and more about losing marks. Questioning societal norms is a very negative thing, even if they don’t make sense.
3. Sensazione (from “How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci”)
What? Fully noticing and observing things with all senses, but especially sight (seeing things that others miss, seeing the details)
The Murder: Except in the sciences and a handful of other subjects, students are usually taught passively through the use of only one sense, listening, or maybe sight (diagrams, photos, etc.). Classrooms and assignments may be incredibly unstimulating to most (or all) senses.
4. Sfumato (from “How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci”)
What? An acceptance of ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty out of a realization that life is not black and white (also an art technique using shadow famous for its use in da Vinci’s paintings)
The Murder: A student’s answer is either right or wrong, usually with no middle ground tolerated. Standardized tests are mostly multiple choice, and in the case of an ambiguous result, students must choose the best possible answer, not a possible answer, even though more than one is really correct. Life and its problems have more than one right answer; multiple choice questions have only one best answer.
5. Arte/Scienza (From “How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci”)
What? Interest in both the arts and sciences and interdisciplinary work that combines them
The Murder: High school courses are most often strictly defined as an “Art” or a “Science”, and they never mingle; interdisciplinary courses at this level are rare. In college, an undergraduate usually receives a either Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science, though there is more flexibility here than in high school. Scientists and artists have their own professional domains which almost never overlap.
6. Corporalita (from “How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci”)
What? Keeping one’s body in good shape; attending to nutrition, fitness, and general physical well-being
The Murder: Physical Education programs - especially in the United States - are being severely cut, and obesity has been described as an epidemic. Junk food is readily available and sometimes may be the only option in a high school cafeteria. Fast food is cheaper and more convenient than healthier food ($4 for an entire meal at McDonald’s or $4 for a single, small-sized fruit bowl?).
7. Connessione (from “How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci”)
What? Acceptance and appreciation for the interconnectedness of everything in life; interdisciplinary approaches and thinking
The Murder: Facts and concepts are taught in specific classes that are independent of each other, and students are moved from individual class to individual class without knowledge of how the two might be connected. Boundaries like that between art and science are rarely crossed or their connectedness even explained. Facts and ideas might be taught with no explanation of the links between them (ie, learning individual details and facts but not the big picture).
8. Drive, energy, intense focus (from various studies on creative genius)
What? Energy and desire to focus intensely on one’s work and interests (often the same thing); merging of work and play
The Murder: Each class is allotted a certain period of time that is inflexible. Despite the student’s interest in a particular class, they must conform to this schedule. Many schools have required curriculum that force a student to give up desirable or necessary electives for core classes they may not need. Students must go to school and all perform well academically, despite their individual talents and aspirations. Musicians and artists especially must break focus on their real interests to attend required academic classes, and may be too drained to work on their own by the end of the school day.
9. Confidence, willingness to take risks, and tolerance of failure (from various studies on creative genius)
What? Willing to continue on with creative work despite rejection; ability to sell oneself and one’s talents
The Murder: Many creative people must face multiple rejections until their idea is sold, and they must accept that if their idea or creative contribution is too radical, society may not yet be ready for it (many artists and writers have only been recognized after their deaths). However, as mentioned above, mistakes and failure are not tolerated in schools and this learned attitude may carry on throughout life. Instead of learning the value of taking risks, students are taught to fear any mistakes that might result. Students are often “babied” - all team mates get a ribbon or a trophy for “participation” - and do not gain the real-world skills they need to sell themselves.
10. Independence, introversion (from various studies on creative genius)
What? Willingness to spend lots of time alone working and honing skills; acceptance of possible isolation
The Murder: The social climate of high school severely discourages spending time alone, especially when spent “working”, and loners are isolated and considered antisocial and friendless. Refusing to conform and “sticking out from the crowd” is highly discouraged by peers and teachers. Creative individuals may have to accept that if the world is not ready for their ideas, they may find few people who understand and support them.
This is how we kill the spirits of our up-and-coming da Vincis. These ten things are the most commonly cited characteristics of highly creative people… and they’re heavily discouraged in the early years by the education system and social climate of adolescence. This is why we won’t see another da Vinci for a long, long time - or why, if we do, he/she would not have come from the system we currently have in place. At every turn schools and society are set on pushing back the most creative individuals. Their common traits are not welcomed nor encouraged, and certainly not nurtured. This must not persist, because I think the world is long overdue for another da Vinci-type right now.
<><><><><><><><><><>
Maya here. I’d add that we don’t need just a handful of da Vincis–we want to encourage the creative genius inside every student (it’s in there–really).
HigherEdWatch just issued its first “Acadamic Bowl Championship Series” poll ranking the current top teams in college football using academic instead of athletic indicators.
According to the results, Boston College is the clear winner, followed by Cincinnati, Auburn, Boise State, and Virginia.
But that’s the good news. The article makes it very clear that although there are plenty of stats used to assess players’ athletic performance, there are very few measures available to assess their academic progress.
They had to go by the numbers they can get. The academic rankings are based on graduation rates and the NCAA’s “Academic Progress Rate” (APR) for each team. Half of each school’s APR score is based on student-athletes just being enrolled as students. The other half is derived from the number of student-athletes completing 20 percent of their courses toward a degree each year, with no minimum GPA required.
According to the report:
Only 56 percent of Division I-A football players entering college between 1997 and 2000 graduated within six years of initial enrollment. And it’s likely that many of those players who left with a degree did not gain workforce-ready skills, because they were tracked into “jock majors” or were required to meet informal, deflated academic standards for student-athletes.
The ranking simply reinforces the fact that the all-American pursuit of college athletics rarely leads to a great education–scholoarship or not. No surprise there.
Best quote from this article by the always excellent Lindsey Luebchow:
Without better data and more transparency, athletes and colleges can continue to game the system, and we’ll never really know whether athletes who graduate are better-educated than those who don’t.
I like this quote about college education.
It’s from Jacob Bronowski, a British mathematician of Polish-Jewish origin who was best remembered as the presenter and writer of the BBC film documentary series, The Ascent of Man.
Here it is:
“It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot, irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it.”
Apologies to profs who must deal with smart-ass comments and teachers who have to put up with incessant questions from the same kid every day. Still, there’s an element of truth and wisdom in this. Shouldn’t we want our kids to pay attention, to question, to discuss and to ultimately create new knowledge?
One of the most frequently cited concerns of professors today is that students are not engaged in their studies. They don’t have rip-roarin’ discussions in class (or at least, not the kind the profs remember fondly from their own college days) and in many cases, they are lacking the most basic understanding of references cited in class and therefore can’t contribute to the conversation in any kind of informed way.
It’s a generalization, true. I know there are plenty of great class discussions going on at any college. But if there is a trend in such things, it’s toward an unwillingness to engage in discussion.
Maybe they’re bored. Maybe they’re Facebooking. Maybe they’re silent but focused on their own analysis of the topic being discussed. Maybe.
It’s hard to measure engagement, but class discussion is a pretty big part of it.
In many European universities, up to 70 percent of the course grade is based on class participation. Not tests. Not papers. DISCUSSIONS. In the US, we tend to place far less emphasis on class participation at the college level.
Interesting.
I’m guessing that the “ragamuffin, barefoot, irreverent” types are doing college differently.
They’re free agents. They’re independent thinkers. And they don’t want to be in a classroom with those who aren’t fully engaged in what they’re learning. They’re creative, and they want to be with others who are willing to explore ideas creatively.
Maybe.
Thoughts?
Hmm. When US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings prefaces her announcement regarding US reading test results by reaffirming our government’s commitment to education, you know the news isn’t great.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has released the 2006 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). This assessment, focusing on students’ reading comprehension and literacy, was administered to a random sampling of approximately 5,000 4th graders from across the United States. The results were then compared to students in more than 45 countries and provinces. The last PIRLS assessment was administered in 2001.
She starts with this:
“The results of this report indicate that our strong commitment to academic excellence is more important than ever. “
Uh-oh. Let’s look at the good news and the bad news.
GOOD:
**Our 4th graders rank above the international average in reading performance.
BAD:
** The US score has not changed measurably from 2001.
Well, at least I can wholeheartedly applaud her closing statement:
“Clearly, as the world becomes flatter, it’s becoming more competitive. We need to do better than simply keep pace.”
Indeed.
Bob Compton, the producer of the education documentary, Two Million Minutes, has a blog in which he is posting about the publicity and responses to the film as well as other education-related news.
In a recent post, he addresses the hullabaloo about state and national standards for education and creating and implementing testing in order to determine the rankings of US states. He writes:
The time for National Standards has passed. America needs to measure itself against a Global Education Standard - one that fairly compares our best and brightest with the best and brightest around the world and that compares our average students with average students in all nations.
I believe that if we start comparing ourselves to Global Education Standards, not only will our average students fair poorly, our best students will be behind the best students of India and China - and there are 7 times more of them than of US top students.
That has profound implications for our country’s economy in the decades ahead. America is behind the largest countries in the world in education standards and NEAP, TIMMS and State tests simply further mislead the American people.
Thanks, Bob, for telling it like it is. This is indeed a numbers game and we’re not looking at the right ones.
We need to recognize that comparing Iowa’s and Indiana’s test scores is not helping us gain a foothold in the global arena.
We need to think bigger and pay attention to a sector of students that will be changing the landscape of the workplace in the next few years–the best and brightest from ALL countries.
I have some ideas for helping the best and the brightest surge forward instead of languishing in the testopia of the last two years of high school. My own four daughters have followed this plan, as have many other students.
It works. And if there’s anything we need at this point, it’s something that WORKS for those who need a new way to challenge themselves, clarify their ideas, discover their talents, and maximize their possibilities.
Oh, and bonus: it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg.
Bring on the creativity and innovation!
The buzz about American education is about to get a lot louder.
The education documentary, Two Million Minutes, will be screened at the landmark Aquarius Theater in Palo Alto, California next Wednesday, December 5th at 7:30 pm.
Present at the screening will be Bob Compton, the film’s executive producer, along with Tim Draper, managing director of Silicon Valley venture firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Tim is an expert featured in the film. In fact, he starts the film with this quote: “America is the one country in the world that doesn’t seem to recognize that it’s in competition for the great minds and the capital of the world.”
Exactly.
Since the film features six high school students–two in the US, two in China and two in India–the high-tech center is a great place to stir up discussion on the status of education in this country and how it will affect employment opportunities in the future. There will be some Silicon Valley heavy hitters there for the screening and the sure-to-be-lively roundtable discussion following.
Want to be there? Readers of this blog can get a free invitation to the Palo Alto screening by contacting Meg Charlebois at Dittoe Public Relations. Email Meg at meg@dittoepr.com or give her a call at 317-202-2280. Seating is limited to 300. Spouses/guests are welcome.
I’ve written about this thought-provoking movie already. Read my posts on the early responses to the film from Harvard grad students here , Bob’s response to their response here, and a bit of correspondence with Neil Ahrendt, an American student featured in the film here.
For a real treat, visit Neil’s blog, in which he shares stories of the responses he’s getting from friends and family and how freaky it is that Barack Obama knows who he is. Honestly, I am so glad that Neil is in this movie. He is a very smart and thoughtful guy, and if we are going to have a poster boy for American education (how can you pick???), I think he is a great choice. It will be fun to read his blog and see how things progress once the film is really out there.
And it WILL be out there in a big way. Watch for news on that here soon.
Last night, I met with a young woman and her mother here in Buenos Aires. The young woman is a delightful student who is studying at a university here. Her mother is visiting her. They shared their story about preparing for college.
L did everything right. From her freshman year, she took the toughest courses, loaded up on AP classes, signed up for all kinds of activities, and studied hard. She took special courses to prepare for the SAT. Her mother attended every single college-prep meeting for parents offered by the competitive high school (it has a very high rate of students who go on to college) and was relentless about doing research that would help her daughter get ready for college.
They visited a number of New England universities. They talked to other students and parents. They went to fairs.
And after considerable deliberation and a great deal of hard work and stress, L applied to several schools and selected the one she wanted to attend. It was a top private university with a $45,000 a year price tag. The family didn’t know how they’d be able to pay for it, but they’d been reassured by the counselors and advisors all along the way, so they tried not to worry about it.
You see, in all those high school meetings, the counselors told the parents, “Don’t think about the money. This is about investing in your child’s future. It’s the most important investment you will ever make. Instead of thinking about the money, concentrate on preparing your student well so that they may enter an excellent university. There is plenty of financial aid available to students–you can think about that later.”
In every college tour, L and her mom asked about financial aid. Each time, they were told by the advisors, “We are committed to making sure every student who is accepted here receives a financial aid package that covers their costs.”
Due to unfortunate family circumstances, L’s mom missed the deadline for the financial aid form. She spent a great deal of time talking to the financial aid advisor to no avail. She was told that those who apply early get the funds, and after the deadline, there is nothing left. L’s mom said, “Listen. I understand that I missed the deadline. But now we have to make a very big decision about going to your school. We can either delay entry until next year so that we can apply for financial aid way in advance, or we can bite the bullet and see how we might come up with the money this year. Please just tell me how much money you WOULD have given her if we had turned in the application by the deadline so that we can plan for next year, if that’s what we decide to do.”
So, the financial aid advisor said, fine, let me do the calculations. She told her, of course, that the university ensures that every student receives a financial aid package that will cover the costs. (Sounding familiar?)
And when she did the numbers, she did, indeed, come up with a package that covered all of the costs. The only trouble is, the actual amount that was awarded to L–and I’m talking about scholarships and grants and anything else that is not considered a loan–came to only $3,000.
So, in other words, that race to get that application in might have resulted in a $3,000 discount off a $45,000 total. She’d need about $42,000 in loans for the first year alone.
The saddest part is that the family felt pressure to go to this school. After all, the next door neighbor kids on both sides were going to Harvard. They felt like they had to come up with the money in order to do the right thing. L felt terribly guilty about the hardship her divorced parents were going through to pay for her college, but they convinced her that it was a smart investment–after all, everyone had told them so–and that she was “worth it”.
L left that university after her freshman year. After working so hard in high school, she felt that the classes at the university were a disappointment–they were not rigorous, most students did not take them seriously, and despite the claims in the website, there were very few opportunities to get to know the professors. In fact, she went the entire first semester without ever having a conversation with any of her profs.
So, dejected and with a hefty debt, L decided to do something different. She knew she loved studying Spanish but thought it was ridiculous to pay a ton of money for a Spanish class when she could learn it by immersion in Latin America and spend far less.
She headed to Buenos Aires, Argentina to study Spanish. She did it on her own–without a program–saving her thousands and thousands of dollars. Although there were some bumpy times that first month (she didn’t have the info that will be in my book!), she is so proud of herself for figuring out how to do things, and once she got settled, she discovered many fantastic opportunities to study in Argentina for far less than she had imagined.
Now, L is going to a university here. She will pay much less for all three years of college here than she will for that ONE year at her previous school.
She knows her professors. She is learning far more than she did at her previous school. She is excited about her education and her future.
Unfortunately, she and her family will be paying for that first year for the next ten years, but as L’s mother says, at least that first school spurred L to discover a far, far better option. Live and learn.
I hear various versions of this story every day. Students and parents are working hard to do the right thing. They are following the advice of high school counselors and financial aid/admissions advisors.
The problem is that none of them are offering any alternatives to the traditional track, nor are they encouraging families to be realistic about the debt they are about to take on.
After all, if EVERYONE is doing the same thing, how can a parent say, “Enough!” without sounding like a Scrooge? What parent wants to feel that they are sacrificing their kid’s education by being–dare I say it–frugal?
Well, I’m here to say, “ENOUGH!” in a very loud voice. For those who are happy to pay the full price, there’s no problem. For those who question the wisdom of putting themselves or their children into debt for the sake of a pre-programmed and pre-packaged college experience, I’d like to point out that there is another way. In fact, there are many other ways.
I hope you’ll read my book. It will be full of tips for those who are ready to find ways to get a top-notch education without doing the mindless college admissions dance.
It’s time for some creativity, don’t you think?
Subscribe To This Feed!
 | Scott Gibson on US Reading Literacy Results: N… |
 | bobby on Are Students Engaged In Their … |
 | Brooke on About Maya Frost |
 | Cindy on Two Million Minutes Gets Peopl… |
 | Olivier Wagner on Should You Learn Mandarin… |
