Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
MAM! (Mormons Abusing Metaphors (or maybe parables, or maybe allegories))
Jesus taught in parables. He also taught very new concepts to an uneducated crowd, at least some of the time. Parables, metaphors, similes, and their similar friends can be powerful educational tools. The Prodigal Son, the Lord of the Rings, Rudy, Rocky, and the Mighty Ducks don't just teach lessons, they bring the listener into the story and introduce empathy.
Mormons love the Savior (we try to keep his commandments, at least), and we seek to emulate him. So I can see why people like to use parables to illustrate points. I just wish they would stop being so terrible at it.
My irritation with these stories goes back about fifteen years, back to when I thought I was cleverer than I was. I'm still not clever, but my feelings haven't changed in 15 years, so I guess I'll own them.
So let's examine three right here. I'd love to hear some metaphors/parables/stories that you don't like.
#1: Watching a movie with a bad part is like drinking orange juice that is mixed with toilet water.
No. No it's not. This is lazy stuff right here. (No offense?) The point the story teller here is trying to make is that the good parts of any movie are not good enough to justify exposure to nudity, cussing, and offensive violence. They are saying that getting a good dose of vitamin C is not worth drinking fecal matter! Well nobody was arguing that, Mr. Straw-Man. Nobody is arguing that orange juice with toilet water is super great. Maybe if we were pirates and we had scurvy; maybe in that case we would put up with a little toilet water dripping on our vitamins.
But our youth are not scurvy-ridden pirates; ok, most of them aren't.. Our youth are savvy, and toilet water is everywhere, metaphorically speaking. I'm not calling anyone Satan here, but Satan probably used this metaphor when trying to convince people of his plan. (If you aren't Mormon, this requires some explanation.) "Whoa whoa whoa! Agency? What is this? You are going to go down there with sin and pain? Do you like orange juice? Or a milkshake? What if I put toilet water in it, would you still drink? Well that's agency right there." - Satan.
Our youth should analyze things they actually question, like movies and music. Take the Shawshank Redemption. It's rated R, and has 7-7-7 on kids-in-mind.com. F words, prison rape, hangings, etc. I watched it, and I felt like I learned a lot. Or consider Saving Private Ryan (Rated R, 1-9-7 on Kids in mind). There are 19 F words in that movie. The movie has great historical, patriotic, and spiritual value, though. So how does a young person determine whether 19 F words outweighs the good? Some people hear 19 F words every day at school, and they don't stop going.
What skills do we need to teach Youth to help them make the right decisions? How can we equip them with the armor of God. (hint: not with stupid toilet metaphors)
#2: Object lesson: Get a bunch of big rocks and little rocks. First, put all the little rocks in a jar, and then try to fit the big rocks in afterward. Design this so it doesn't work! Then, empty the jar, put the big rocks in first, and put the little rocks in so they dribble along the big rocks and all fit, nice and cozy! Then, do your best to apply this object lesson to spiritual priorities.
Big rocks = important, small rocks = not important. Put the big rocks in first.
But this doesn't make any sense, really. If you prioritize important things like family, church, and money to feed your kids, then you will sacrifice other things. If, every day, you spend 3 hours on your church calling, 4 hours with your kids, and 10 hours at work, it's not like you will magically have time to watch all the Netflix you want. If I get up at 5 am to work out, I don't get to take a nap later. Nope. No naps. In fact, if I want to add something important, I usually have to sacrifice something important. (See: Good, Better, Best)
Why not just have an honest discussion about what the Lord asks of us? This "priorities" concept isn't new or alien. We don't need an object lesson to explain that if you do stupid stuff all day, you won't have time for the good stuff. We need the tools to determine what constitutes "good" or "best."
#3: If your aim is just 1 degree off when you are shooting at a target one mile away, you'll miss.... by a LOT!
I've personally shared this one, several times. But it's kind of nonsense, amirite? Really, does anyone actually think people are like bullets fired from a gun? You gotta aim right at the beginning and then "bam!" your destiny is fixed, less the wind blows you into a tree. Oops, treed for eternity. Hope you weren't listening to Eminem and cussing when it was aiming time, you are eternally off course.
But LDS people believe in an infinite Atonement, given to us by Jesus Christ. We believe in weekly, daily, hourly, secondly (?) repentance, and a complete reliance on a combination of change and grace. Bullets don't have course corrections, unless you are watching "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie (edited for TV of course, for those of you who don't understand that, some of the toilet water was removed. Science!).
Why do we allow people to use metaphors that essentially ignore the most important principles of the Gospel? It's the same reason we tell kids that they will get lead-poisoning from a pencil, that their faces will stick in place if they make funny faces, and that gum will stay in their bellies for two years. We are afraid that the truth--the complicated, confusing truth--will not be enough to convince them to do the right thing.
We need more faith.
Mormons love the Savior (we try to keep his commandments, at least), and we seek to emulate him. So I can see why people like to use parables to illustrate points. I just wish they would stop being so terrible at it.
My irritation with these stories goes back about fifteen years, back to when I thought I was cleverer than I was. I'm still not clever, but my feelings haven't changed in 15 years, so I guess I'll own them.
So let's examine three right here. I'd love to hear some metaphors/parables/stories that you don't like.
#1: Watching a movie with a bad part is like drinking orange juice that is mixed with toilet water.
No. No it's not. This is lazy stuff right here. (No offense?) The point the story teller here is trying to make is that the good parts of any movie are not good enough to justify exposure to nudity, cussing, and offensive violence. They are saying that getting a good dose of vitamin C is not worth drinking fecal matter! Well nobody was arguing that, Mr. Straw-Man. Nobody is arguing that orange juice with toilet water is super great. Maybe if we were pirates and we had scurvy; maybe in that case we would put up with a little toilet water dripping on our vitamins.
But our youth are not scurvy-ridden pirates; ok, most of them aren't.. Our youth are savvy, and toilet water is everywhere, metaphorically speaking. I'm not calling anyone Satan here, but Satan probably used this metaphor when trying to convince people of his plan. (If you aren't Mormon, this requires some explanation.) "Whoa whoa whoa! Agency? What is this? You are going to go down there with sin and pain? Do you like orange juice? Or a milkshake? What if I put toilet water in it, would you still drink? Well that's agency right there." - Satan.
Our youth should analyze things they actually question, like movies and music. Take the Shawshank Redemption. It's rated R, and has 7-7-7 on kids-in-mind.com. F words, prison rape, hangings, etc. I watched it, and I felt like I learned a lot. Or consider Saving Private Ryan (Rated R, 1-9-7 on Kids in mind). There are 19 F words in that movie. The movie has great historical, patriotic, and spiritual value, though. So how does a young person determine whether 19 F words outweighs the good? Some people hear 19 F words every day at school, and they don't stop going.
What skills do we need to teach Youth to help them make the right decisions? How can we equip them with the armor of God. (hint: not with stupid toilet metaphors)
#2: Object lesson: Get a bunch of big rocks and little rocks. First, put all the little rocks in a jar, and then try to fit the big rocks in afterward. Design this so it doesn't work! Then, empty the jar, put the big rocks in first, and put the little rocks in so they dribble along the big rocks and all fit, nice and cozy! Then, do your best to apply this object lesson to spiritual priorities.
Big rocks = important, small rocks = not important. Put the big rocks in first.
But this doesn't make any sense, really. If you prioritize important things like family, church, and money to feed your kids, then you will sacrifice other things. If, every day, you spend 3 hours on your church calling, 4 hours with your kids, and 10 hours at work, it's not like you will magically have time to watch all the Netflix you want. If I get up at 5 am to work out, I don't get to take a nap later. Nope. No naps. In fact, if I want to add something important, I usually have to sacrifice something important. (See: Good, Better, Best)
Why not just have an honest discussion about what the Lord asks of us? This "priorities" concept isn't new or alien. We don't need an object lesson to explain that if you do stupid stuff all day, you won't have time for the good stuff. We need the tools to determine what constitutes "good" or "best."
#3: If your aim is just 1 degree off when you are shooting at a target one mile away, you'll miss.... by a LOT!
I've personally shared this one, several times. But it's kind of nonsense, amirite? Really, does anyone actually think people are like bullets fired from a gun? You gotta aim right at the beginning and then "bam!" your destiny is fixed, less the wind blows you into a tree. Oops, treed for eternity. Hope you weren't listening to Eminem and cussing when it was aiming time, you are eternally off course.
But LDS people believe in an infinite Atonement, given to us by Jesus Christ. We believe in weekly, daily, hourly, secondly (?) repentance, and a complete reliance on a combination of change and grace. Bullets don't have course corrections, unless you are watching "Wanted" with Angelina Jolie (edited for TV of course, for those of you who don't understand that, some of the toilet water was removed. Science!).
Why do we allow people to use metaphors that essentially ignore the most important principles of the Gospel? It's the same reason we tell kids that they will get lead-poisoning from a pencil, that their faces will stick in place if they make funny faces, and that gum will stay in their bellies for two years. We are afraid that the truth--the complicated, confusing truth--will not be enough to convince them to do the right thing.
We need more faith.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Silliness of University Education
This article was written as a demonstration for my Political Science Students. I agree with much of it, but not necessarily all of it.
The Silliness of University Education:
A collection of smart people doing dumb things
November 15, 2012
By John Berger
What is the American dream? In centuries past, immigrants came to this country with a dream that anyone could work hard, own property, and live in prosperity regardless of class or social status. Apparently this dream is now contingent on a college education. A 22 year-old high school graduate who is working full time instead of attending class may be pursuing the old American dream, but society thinks he is "trying to figure out what to do with his life." People must choose a path. Path "A" means going to college, Path "B" means "settling" for a high school education alone. To society, everyone on Path "B", other than the Zuckerbergs and Gates of the world, must be on Path B simply because they didn't have the opportunity to go to college. To society, path B is not a choice, but a consequence. Society is wrong.
The higher education system is broken and, until it is fixed, students should strongly consider waiting four or five years to attend college. They may be better served by working full time and saving money, joining the military, starting a business, or even travelling than running full speed into education without a good idea of where they want to go. The U.S. higher education system is broken largely because of three factors. First, many young workers and innovators need not go to college. Second, the cost of attending a university is rising much faster than overall inflation and wages due to a corrupt student loan system. Finally, learning institutions treat all degrees equally, and employers don't.
Alternative Education Should not be Dismissed
The founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, sent shock-waves through the education landscape when he awarded fellowships of $100,000 each to youth under 20 years old, requiring them to drop out of college to become entrepreneurs. (CNET; Musil). Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur who teaches at Duke and Stanford, argued that Thiel "doesn't understand how important education is for the masses . . ." explaining that he worries about "a message that's getting out there to America that it's okay to drop out of school, that you don't have to get college. Absolutely dead wrong." (Cnet; Musil) Wadhwa is not alone. Many critics excoriated Thiel for his plan, but their arguments fail to consider both sides of the argument. Few people believe that education is bad, but Thiel's premise is that formal education is not worth the direct costs and opportunity costs. For many students, Thiel is absolutely correct.
Learners now have more options than ever before with sites like academicearth.org and coursera.org, which offer free online courses from schools like Duke, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, MIT, and Harvard. Motivated and dedicated individuals, particularly those who believe learning is essential for success, can find all the information they need for free. Unfortunately, employers and governments don't recognize self-study as an accredited form of education. As a result, students rush to get their various degrees in hoop-jumping, with little regard for actual learning.
The Value of a Degree is muted by Massive Costs
Critics of alternative education are quick to point out that traditional Bachelor's degrees have significant value. One study, released by the Lumina Foundation and Georgetown University explained that the economy added 200,000 jobs for workers with bachelors degrees during the latest recession, with an additional two million more after it ended. (Huffington Post; Pope). By contrast, according to the same study, nearly 6 million high-school-only jobs have been lost since the downturn began, and they are still declining even in the recovery. (Huffington Post; Pope). Furthermore, recent estimates suggest that bachelor's degree holders earn $1.3 million more in their lifetime than those who hold only a high school diploma.
While the statistics above are persuasive, data like these don't necessarily mean that alternative education is ineffective. They simply suggest that employers are more willing to hire individuals with a formal education, possibly because those individuals are more dedicated and motivated than the pool of applicants who gave up after high-school. However, it defies reason for an employer to pass up a highly qualified and intelligent person who chose a cheaper and better approach to education. Imagine if college sports recruiters took such a silly approach: "Well James is bigger, faster, stronger, and his stats are much better, but I'm going to go with Mark because he went to a better program." It's ludicrous in the sports context, and it is ludicrous in the education context.
Critics of alternative education often fail to fully consider the opportunity costs, direct costs, and financing costs of traditional education.
First, Students are giving up three to six years to pursue a bachelor's degree, limiting the amount of hours they can work, promotions they receive, and money they can save. A student could spend four years saving up $50,000, which would be worth between $350,000 and $900,000 at retirement. (Future Value Calculator).
Second, the direct cost of education is going, for lack of a better word, "crazy." Education has grown at a faster rate than inflation for 29 of the past 30 years. (the Atlantic). Education has even grown at a faster rate than medical care for 27 of the past 30 years (the Atlantic). Even adjusting for inflation the cost of attending a four year university has nearly doubled since 1990. (nces.ed.gov). The cost of education has essentially inflated by 190% since 1990 (nces.ed.gov), rising 86% faster than average wages. (ssa.gov) The current average cost of attendance at four year institutions is $88,368 for four years. (nces.ed.gov).
Why are the costs going up so fast? The most reasonable argument is that costs are going up due to an insane demand for college education, as nearly 20 million students attend college each year in spite of rising costs. (asa.org). However, students can only pay these high prices because of easy-to-get federal loans.
Third, U.S. citizens currently owe approximately $1 Trillion in total outstanding student loan debt, with roughly 864 billion in federal student loan debt. (asa.org) The average student loan balance for all age groups, including those individuals who went to school when it was cheaper, is $24,301. (asa.org). Approximately 5.4 borrowers have one student loan currently in default, and only 37% of federal student loan borrowers between 2004 and 2009 managed to make timely payments without postponing payments or becoming delinquent. (asa.org). As most new graduates aren't making payments, interest on the debt continues to balloon. If a student borrows $50,000 she will likely accrue more than $3,000 a year in interest.
Combine the above factors and your potential costs, including opportunity costs, could easily be over a million dollars, significantly muting the "1.3 million in additional earnings" argument for bachelor's degrees. And the cost of a bachelor's degree is apparently unrelated to wages or general inflation. Universities will continue to raise tuition and fees so long as students can borrow the money to pay, while at the same time Universities will continue failing to increase the value of their product to match the rising costs.
All Degrees are NOT Created Equal
Consider the following list of Mid-Career Median Salaries for the following degrees: (Full List at Wall Street Journal)
Chemical Engineering: $107,000
Economics: $98,600
Physics: $97,300
Computer Science: $95,500
Math: $92,400
Marketing: $79,600
Political Science: $78,200
Business Management: $72,100
History: $71,000
English: $64,700
Graphic Design: $59,800
Criminal Justice: $56,300
Education: $52,000
Stop the presses! Career earnings for a Computer Science major are approximately $1.4 Million more than earnings for a Graphic Design major. That is more than the difference in career earnings between a bachelor's degree holder and a meager high-school graduate.
At the University of Utah, resident tuition for a junior in the graphic design program is $3,137.14 per 15 credits. For a Computer Science major, tuition is--wait for it--$3,137.14 per 15 credits. (University of Utah) Clearly, cost is not associated with value. Furthermore, the department of education gives loans to everyone who qualifies, regardless of their choice in major. Education majors can borrow every bit as much as Chemical Engineering majors. This is equivalent to allowing a borrower with decent credit borrow the same amount of money to purchase a 2007 Toyota Yaris as a 2013 BMW X5.
Many educators argue that there is some intrinsic value of a well rounded education which cannot be calculated by potential salary. Even if this is true, why must that well-rounded, liberal-arts education cost as much as a technical degree? Furthermore, why can't students pursue such an education online or in the library?
In 1909, Dr. Charles William Elliot, president of Harvard University, was instrumental in publishing the Harvard Classics, a 51-volume anthology of classic works. Dr. Elliot claimed that if you were to spend just 15 minutes a day reading books that could fit on a five foot shelf, you could give yourself a proper liberal education. (Gutenberg)
In 1909, access to education was limited to the elite and few other lucky individuals. One solution to such a problem would be to spend trillions of dollars in private and public money, allowing individuals to gather in large stone buildings and text-message through art-history lectures. A second solution--the solution proposed by Dr. Elliot--was to read books, a significantly more affordable approach.
--
While all education has significant value, not all education is created equal, and not all education must be taught in a traditional setting. However, until employers and governments believe Dr. Elliot's approach might work, and so long as the government allows all students to borrow absurd amounts of money regardless of major, the demand, and cost, of college education will continue to skyrocket.
As this ridiculous pattern continues, students should strongly consider waiting four or five years to attend college. They may be better served by working full time and saving money, joining the military, or starting a business than they will by running full speed into costly education without a good idea of where they want to go.
Some might be concerned that this will delay their career and "big money" opportunities, but as explained above, most graduates can't even make their loan payments. Additionally, 43% of young adults under 25 currently live at home anyway. (USA Today; Nasser). We currently push young adults to get an education, but we need to focus on getting the right education in an efficient way. We should start by eliminating the bad decision-making promoted by easy government financing. Until then, students should strongly consider staying out of the pasture of education until they can cut through the crap.
Sources
C|net News. Steven Musil, Thiel's college dropout plan scrutinized by '60 Minutes', available here.
Huffington Post. Justin Pope, College Costs: New Research Weighs the True Value of a College Education, available here.
American Student Assistance, Student Loan Debt Statistics, available here.
Investopedia Future Value Calculator, available here
the Atlantic; Niraj Chokshi, Education Costs Rising Faster than Health Care, available here.
National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov), Fast Facts: Tuition Costs of Colleges and Universities, available here.
Social Security Administration, National Average Wage Index, available here.
The Wall Street Journal, Salary Increase by Major, available here.
University of Utah, Undergraduate Tuition Per Semester, available here.
Project Gutenberg, Harvard Classics, available here.
The Silliness of University Education:
A collection of smart people doing dumb things
November 15, 2012
By John Berger
What is the American dream? In centuries past, immigrants came to this country with a dream that anyone could work hard, own property, and live in prosperity regardless of class or social status. Apparently this dream is now contingent on a college education. A 22 year-old high school graduate who is working full time instead of attending class may be pursuing the old American dream, but society thinks he is "trying to figure out what to do with his life." People must choose a path. Path "A" means going to college, Path "B" means "settling" for a high school education alone. To society, everyone on Path "B", other than the Zuckerbergs and Gates of the world, must be on Path B simply because they didn't have the opportunity to go to college. To society, path B is not a choice, but a consequence. Society is wrong.
The higher education system is broken and, until it is fixed, students should strongly consider waiting four or five years to attend college. They may be better served by working full time and saving money, joining the military, starting a business, or even travelling than running full speed into education without a good idea of where they want to go. The U.S. higher education system is broken largely because of three factors. First, many young workers and innovators need not go to college. Second, the cost of attending a university is rising much faster than overall inflation and wages due to a corrupt student loan system. Finally, learning institutions treat all degrees equally, and employers don't.
Alternative Education Should not be Dismissed
The founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, sent shock-waves through the education landscape when he awarded fellowships of $100,000 each to youth under 20 years old, requiring them to drop out of college to become entrepreneurs. (CNET; Musil). Vivek Wadhwa, an entrepreneur who teaches at Duke and Stanford, argued that Thiel "doesn't understand how important education is for the masses . . ." explaining that he worries about "a message that's getting out there to America that it's okay to drop out of school, that you don't have to get college. Absolutely dead wrong." (Cnet; Musil) Wadhwa is not alone. Many critics excoriated Thiel for his plan, but their arguments fail to consider both sides of the argument. Few people believe that education is bad, but Thiel's premise is that formal education is not worth the direct costs and opportunity costs. For many students, Thiel is absolutely correct.
Learners now have more options than ever before with sites like academicearth.org and coursera.org, which offer free online courses from schools like Duke, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, MIT, and Harvard. Motivated and dedicated individuals, particularly those who believe learning is essential for success, can find all the information they need for free. Unfortunately, employers and governments don't recognize self-study as an accredited form of education. As a result, students rush to get their various degrees in hoop-jumping, with little regard for actual learning.
The Value of a Degree is muted by Massive Costs
Critics of alternative education are quick to point out that traditional Bachelor's degrees have significant value. One study, released by the Lumina Foundation and Georgetown University explained that the economy added 200,000 jobs for workers with bachelors degrees during the latest recession, with an additional two million more after it ended. (Huffington Post; Pope). By contrast, according to the same study, nearly 6 million high-school-only jobs have been lost since the downturn began, and they are still declining even in the recovery. (Huffington Post; Pope). Furthermore, recent estimates suggest that bachelor's degree holders earn $1.3 million more in their lifetime than those who hold only a high school diploma.
While the statistics above are persuasive, data like these don't necessarily mean that alternative education is ineffective. They simply suggest that employers are more willing to hire individuals with a formal education, possibly because those individuals are more dedicated and motivated than the pool of applicants who gave up after high-school. However, it defies reason for an employer to pass up a highly qualified and intelligent person who chose a cheaper and better approach to education. Imagine if college sports recruiters took such a silly approach: "Well James is bigger, faster, stronger, and his stats are much better, but I'm going to go with Mark because he went to a better program." It's ludicrous in the sports context, and it is ludicrous in the education context.
Critics of alternative education often fail to fully consider the opportunity costs, direct costs, and financing costs of traditional education.
First, Students are giving up three to six years to pursue a bachelor's degree, limiting the amount of hours they can work, promotions they receive, and money they can save. A student could spend four years saving up $50,000, which would be worth between $350,000 and $900,000 at retirement. (Future Value Calculator).
Second, the direct cost of education is going, for lack of a better word, "crazy." Education has grown at a faster rate than inflation for 29 of the past 30 years. (the Atlantic). Education has even grown at a faster rate than medical care for 27 of the past 30 years (the Atlantic). Even adjusting for inflation the cost of attending a four year university has nearly doubled since 1990. (nces.ed.gov). The cost of education has essentially inflated by 190% since 1990 (nces.ed.gov), rising 86% faster than average wages. (ssa.gov) The current average cost of attendance at four year institutions is $88,368 for four years. (nces.ed.gov).
Why are the costs going up so fast? The most reasonable argument is that costs are going up due to an insane demand for college education, as nearly 20 million students attend college each year in spite of rising costs. (asa.org). However, students can only pay these high prices because of easy-to-get federal loans.
Combine the above factors and your potential costs, including opportunity costs, could easily be over a million dollars, significantly muting the "1.3 million in additional earnings" argument for bachelor's degrees. And the cost of a bachelor's degree is apparently unrelated to wages or general inflation. Universities will continue to raise tuition and fees so long as students can borrow the money to pay, while at the same time Universities will continue failing to increase the value of their product to match the rising costs.
All Degrees are NOT Created Equal
Consider the following list of Mid-Career Median Salaries for the following degrees: (Full List at Wall Street Journal)
Chemical Engineering: $107,000
Economics: $98,600
Physics: $97,300
Computer Science: $95,500
Math: $92,400
Marketing: $79,600
Political Science: $78,200
Business Management: $72,100
History: $71,000
English: $64,700
Graphic Design: $59,800
Criminal Justice: $56,300
Education: $52,000
Stop the presses! Career earnings for a Computer Science major are approximately $1.4 Million more than earnings for a Graphic Design major. That is more than the difference in career earnings between a bachelor's degree holder and a meager high-school graduate.
At the University of Utah, resident tuition for a junior in the graphic design program is $3,137.14 per 15 credits. For a Computer Science major, tuition is--wait for it--$3,137.14 per 15 credits. (University of Utah) Clearly, cost is not associated with value. Furthermore, the department of education gives loans to everyone who qualifies, regardless of their choice in major. Education majors can borrow every bit as much as Chemical Engineering majors. This is equivalent to allowing a borrower with decent credit borrow the same amount of money to purchase a 2007 Toyota Yaris as a 2013 BMW X5.
Many educators argue that there is some intrinsic value of a well rounded education which cannot be calculated by potential salary. Even if this is true, why must that well-rounded, liberal-arts education cost as much as a technical degree? Furthermore, why can't students pursue such an education online or in the library?
In 1909, Dr. Charles William Elliot, president of Harvard University, was instrumental in publishing the Harvard Classics, a 51-volume anthology of classic works. Dr. Elliot claimed that if you were to spend just 15 minutes a day reading books that could fit on a five foot shelf, you could give yourself a proper liberal education. (Gutenberg)
In 1909, access to education was limited to the elite and few other lucky individuals. One solution to such a problem would be to spend trillions of dollars in private and public money, allowing individuals to gather in large stone buildings and text-message through art-history lectures. A second solution--the solution proposed by Dr. Elliot--was to read books, a significantly more affordable approach.
--
While all education has significant value, not all education is created equal, and not all education must be taught in a traditional setting. However, until employers and governments believe Dr. Elliot's approach might work, and so long as the government allows all students to borrow absurd amounts of money regardless of major, the demand, and cost, of college education will continue to skyrocket.
As this ridiculous pattern continues, students should strongly consider waiting four or five years to attend college. They may be better served by working full time and saving money, joining the military, or starting a business than they will by running full speed into costly education without a good idea of where they want to go.
Some might be concerned that this will delay their career and "big money" opportunities, but as explained above, most graduates can't even make their loan payments. Additionally, 43% of young adults under 25 currently live at home anyway. (USA Today; Nasser). We currently push young adults to get an education, but we need to focus on getting the right education in an efficient way. We should start by eliminating the bad decision-making promoted by easy government financing. Until then, students should strongly consider staying out of the pasture of education until they can cut through the crap.
Sources
C|net News. Steven Musil, Thiel's college dropout plan scrutinized by '60 Minutes', available here.
Huffington Post. Justin Pope, College Costs: New Research Weighs the True Value of a College Education, available here.
American Student Assistance, Student Loan Debt Statistics, available here.
Investopedia Future Value Calculator, available here
the Atlantic; Niraj Chokshi, Education Costs Rising Faster than Health Care, available here.
National Center for Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov), Fast Facts: Tuition Costs of Colleges and Universities, available here.
Social Security Administration, National Average Wage Index, available here.
The Wall Street Journal, Salary Increase by Major, available here.
University of Utah, Undergraduate Tuition Per Semester, available here.
Project Gutenberg, Harvard Classics, available here.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Stand your Ground?
Nobody should reasonably believe I represent them as an attorney because of this post, and nobody should believe I am giving them any legal advice of any kind.
Also, I am an attorney, and I have a fair bit of criminal law experience, but I'm no expert on "Stand your Ground" laws. Also, I have essentially no real understanding of Florida criminal law, though it may be similar to other state laws.
The George Zimmerman trial was very interesting. I think the reporting on this trial was terrible, particularly reporting from those calling for a guilty verdict. I don't know if they intended to mislead anyone, but many reporters did mislead people. I think it's horrible that Trayvon died that night.
If you are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted, it must be for one of three reasons, right? Either 1) you believe important facts were withheld from the Jury, 2) you believe the Jury got all the facts, but you believe they were just plain wrong, or 3) you believe the law in Florida is bad.
I don't see how a reasonable person could believe 1 or 2, but that's just me. I'm going to focus on number 3.
There was no question in this case that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. The question in this case was whether the killing was legally justified. "Legally" justified, not morally or ethically. As part of legal justification, the jury had to consider the following:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It seems that the Zimmerman case was not a typical case. If Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon Martin, Martin wouldn't have confronted him. So maybe Zimmerman is a bad guy for following Martin, but following someone in public is legal. Zimmerman had a right to be wherever Martin was. Maybe you care that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" and that he "stalked" Martin that night, but the real issue in the case came after that stuff happened.
Apparently the Jurors believed Zimmerman approached Martin, Martin confronted Zimmerman, a struggle ensued, Zimmerman was injured and he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm or his own death.
If you believe the Jurors believed that, what exactly is the problem with the verdict? Pretend, for a moment, that you are a Florida State Representative. Your job is to draft a new law to cover these situations generally. This new law would apply to all self defense cases. What would you change?
Most people would allow a person to use deadly force if he reasonably fears for his life. But, many people say they would eliminate the use of self defense in cases where the killer could have reasonably retreated. They would want the Jury to hear an instruction similar to this:
"The Killer may have had a duty to retreat before using deadly force. If you find that the Killer could have reasonably retreated without increasing the risk of great bodily harm or death, then the killing was not justifiable."
I have a couple questions about this.
First, when does this duty to retreat (or analyze your retreat) kick in? What if I hear a burglar going through my things in the other room? Do I have a duty to retreat before I can investigate? Or does my duty to retreat only kick after I believe the burglar is going to greatly harm or kill me? (i.e., after I'm stuck in a small room with him.) In Zimmerman, is it enough that he could have retreated before Martin confronted him, or did the duty to retreat only kick after the fight began? Do we really want to require people to run away from danger before they feel they are in danger?
Second, would you want to use the above instruction in all cases? What if there are other people around that might get hurt? How sure do you have to be that they are in danger before you decide not to run? What if you are in your home, your car, or your office? Do you have to break out a back window and jump into the bushes?
Imagine the following hypothetical. You are sitting on a bench in a store and a massive white guy punches you in the face. He knocks out your teeth. You get up, he smashes your head against a wall. He turns around, WWE style, and yells, "There's more where that came from, and you won't ever get up again." You believe you could outrun him, but you aren't certain. So you pull out your weapon and he rushes you. Should you have a duty to turn around and run if you think you are faster than him? Or can you use deadly force?
If you believe deadly force is justified in the above hypothetical, but you don't believe deadly force was justified in the Zimmerman case, please explain why. Also, how would you draft a law that would apply to the Zimmerman case, but wouldn't apply to the hypothetical?
Laws aren't perfect, and they are generally drafted to apply to the common occurrences, not the outlier cases. It seems that making specific laws for every circumstance is virtually impossible. I hope that anger over the Zimmerman trial leads to individuals getting more education and more information about the legal system. I hope it leads people to work toward drafting "better" legislation. I'm afraid it will cause people to become cozily entrenched in their ignorance.
Also, I am an attorney, and I have a fair bit of criminal law experience, but I'm no expert on "Stand your Ground" laws. Also, I have essentially no real understanding of Florida criminal law, though it may be similar to other state laws.
The George Zimmerman trial was very interesting. I think the reporting on this trial was terrible, particularly reporting from those calling for a guilty verdict. I don't know if they intended to mislead anyone, but many reporters did mislead people. I think it's horrible that Trayvon died that night.
If you are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted, it must be for one of three reasons, right? Either 1) you believe important facts were withheld from the Jury, 2) you believe the Jury got all the facts, but you believe they were just plain wrong, or 3) you believe the law in Florida is bad.
I don't see how a reasonable person could believe 1 or 2, but that's just me. I'm going to focus on number 3.
There was no question in this case that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. The question in this case was whether the killing was legally justified. "Legally" justified, not morally or ethically. As part of legal justification, the jury had to consider the following:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It seems that the Zimmerman case was not a typical case. If Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon Martin, Martin wouldn't have confronted him. So maybe Zimmerman is a bad guy for following Martin, but following someone in public is legal. Zimmerman had a right to be wherever Martin was. Maybe you care that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" and that he "stalked" Martin that night, but the real issue in the case came after that stuff happened.
Apparently the Jurors believed Zimmerman approached Martin, Martin confronted Zimmerman, a struggle ensued, Zimmerman was injured and he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm or his own death.
If you believe the Jurors believed that, what exactly is the problem with the verdict? Pretend, for a moment, that you are a Florida State Representative. Your job is to draft a new law to cover these situations generally. This new law would apply to all self defense cases. What would you change?
Most people would allow a person to use deadly force if he reasonably fears for his life. But, many people say they would eliminate the use of self defense in cases where the killer could have reasonably retreated. They would want the Jury to hear an instruction similar to this:
"The Killer may have had a duty to retreat before using deadly force. If you find that the Killer could have reasonably retreated without increasing the risk of great bodily harm or death, then the killing was not justifiable."
I have a couple questions about this.
First, when does this duty to retreat (or analyze your retreat) kick in? What if I hear a burglar going through my things in the other room? Do I have a duty to retreat before I can investigate? Or does my duty to retreat only kick after I believe the burglar is going to greatly harm or kill me? (i.e., after I'm stuck in a small room with him.) In Zimmerman, is it enough that he could have retreated before Martin confronted him, or did the duty to retreat only kick after the fight began? Do we really want to require people to run away from danger before they feel they are in danger?
Second, would you want to use the above instruction in all cases? What if there are other people around that might get hurt? How sure do you have to be that they are in danger before you decide not to run? What if you are in your home, your car, or your office? Do you have to break out a back window and jump into the bushes?
Imagine the following hypothetical. You are sitting on a bench in a store and a massive white guy punches you in the face. He knocks out your teeth. You get up, he smashes your head against a wall. He turns around, WWE style, and yells, "There's more where that came from, and you won't ever get up again." You believe you could outrun him, but you aren't certain. So you pull out your weapon and he rushes you. Should you have a duty to turn around and run if you think you are faster than him? Or can you use deadly force?
If you believe deadly force is justified in the above hypothetical, but you don't believe deadly force was justified in the Zimmerman case, please explain why. Also, how would you draft a law that would apply to the Zimmerman case, but wouldn't apply to the hypothetical?
Laws aren't perfect, and they are generally drafted to apply to the common occurrences, not the outlier cases. It seems that making specific laws for every circumstance is virtually impossible. I hope that anger over the Zimmerman trial leads to individuals getting more education and more information about the legal system. I hope it leads people to work toward drafting "better" legislation. I'm afraid it will cause people to become cozily entrenched in their ignorance.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Gay Marriage and the Law
I grew up in Utah. I am a Mormon. I believe in God, and I believe God commands us that we should not have sexual relations outside of marriage. I believe God wants marriage within the church to be exclusively reserved for unions between one man and one woman. I also believe that we are to love all of God's children to the best of our ability, and that we will be judged by how we choose to cast our stones.
I would ask anyone who reads this to refrain from inferring any of my other beliefs.
The issue of marriage between two homosexuals is extremely controversial. That's because it deals with sex, right? I assume that far more people will be judged harshly for their greed, intolerance, wrath, adultery, dishonesty, and selfishness than for their gay relationships. But I don't see a proposition 8 type fight over banning selfishness. I also assume that the judgment for promiscuity and fornication will be similar to the judgment for gay sex. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Barney Stinson were judged more harshly for his heterosexual relationships than Neil Patrick Harris will for his homosexual relationship. But I don't see a proposition 8 type fight over banning fornication.
The Gay-Marriage battle-waters are murky. It's unclear exactly what the strategy is or what benefits the warriors intend to reap.
The waters are murky because:
Gay sex is legal.
Fornication is legal (or laws against it are not enforced)
Adoption by one gay person is legal
Contracts between Gays are legal
Gays can have power of attorney for one another
Gays can live together
Gays can jointly own property
Gays can devise all of their property to another gay person in their last will and testament.
Do members of the anti-gay-marriage crowd have a problem with any of those items listed above? If so, why not legislate against it? Why not have a "don't-ask don't-tell" policy for property owners. "You may share real estate so long as you don't tell anyone you are gay." Why did Lawrence v. Texas effectively end the public debate over sexual privacy? I don't hear calls for a proposed constitutional amendment making gay sex illegal.
It seems clear that for many things, like fornication, LDS church members and others of similar faith have no problem separating morality and eternal law from the legislative and judicial system here on earth. In the past, some Christians have sought to enforce laws against unmarried cohabitation. They have tried to force unwed mothers to get married or give up the baby. They have enacted legislation allowing police to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of sodomy.
But in this day and age, the majority of the country chooses to determine what is "right" and "wrong" independently of what is "legal." It is possible to believe that two unwed partners should not have kids together without making a law against it. It's possible to believe that men should not have sexual relations with other men without making a law against it.
Currently none of the sanctity of marriage laws are effectively stopping any actual behavior. Gays still live together, love each other, are intimate, adopt kids, start businesses, own property, and care for one another in the hospital, yet the line in the sand has been drawn at the "symbol" of marriage. The concern must be over the acknowledgement by society that gay unions are equal to straight marriage, and I don't see anything in the constitution that gives marriage a higher status than any other type of relationship.
I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that personal opinions about morality and spirituality can and should be involved in political discussions. But the current debate has forced many believers to engage in straw-man arguments, put forth faulty logic, and cherry pick misleading data. That type of justification strategy undermines the credibility of its source. I don't think anyone should be afraid to stand up and say, "I believe God wants us to pass the following law: _________" yet so many engage in "logical" debates about things that are of a spiritual nature. If you want to convince the voters that they should follow God's will, discuss God and Jesus Christ with them, not Caesar.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
iPhone 5 vs. Samsung Galaxy Note 2: My Switch from iOS 6 to Android 4.1
In my past, I've had stints as an Apple hater, an Apple fan boy, and an "I'm so bored of my iPhone" guy.
I work on a Lenovo PC, my home computer is a 2009 Macbook Pro 13.3'', and I've owned an iPhone 3gs and an iPhone 4. I've also used my wife's iPhone 4s extensively.
I finally decided to switch from my three year love-affair with iPhone to a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 (after months of research, finally deciding on the Nexus 4, the Nexus 4 selling out, and absolutely loving the Galaxy Note 2 at the AT&T store.)
In order to review my transition and the Galaxy Note 2, I will be comparing the Galaxy Note 2 to the iPhone 5 and iPhone 4s.
Let's get to it.
Size & Weight
Handling the Phone
This is really the first big issue, with a massive 5.5'' screen, the Note 2 is imposing. The size difference between the 4s and the Note 2 is incredible. I showed the Note 2 to my boss the day I purchased it and he just started laughing. A friend asked me if I planned to avoid jeans for the next two years.
The phone fits easily into my dress-pants pocket, and has no problem slipping in my non-skinny jeans pocket. I like to store the phone in my dress-shirt pocket as well (which is stupid) and the top of the phone pokes out by about an inch.
I have average-sized hands: with my hand fully extended the distance from the end of my thumb to the end of my pinky finger is just about 9 inches, and the distance from the end of my thumb to the end of my index finger is about 7.5 inches.
I was annoyed by the phone dimensions at first. The keyboard pops up too far from the email send button for my thumb to reach both without shifting my hand, and texting with one hand provides a "i'm going to drop this thing" sensation.
That said, I adjusted to the size in about 24 hours. The phone is so thin, and the design makes it easy to hold. I can easily grasp the phone to read articles without getting worn out (like when you hold the corner of an iPad for too long). I estimate I can easily do 85% of my normal activities without needing the second hand.
That said, think it is important to buy a case for this thing. I've treated it like a newborn baby, and I'm in constant fear of dropping it onto its massive face. My case should arrive in a couple days.
Viewing the Display
The size of the display is amazing for daily use. I was afraid it wouldn't be big enough to use like a tablet, and that the size would be cumbersome for a phone. I was wrong. In landscape mode, I can see a list of emails with a preview window (like on outlook or gmail) I can open two applications at the same time, reading a webpage while typing information into a note or email. I can comfortably view full webpages without resorting to the web version, and movies and TV look amazing. The Note 2 is by no means a TV replacement (some prefer to watch movies on their close-to-face iPads over smallish TVs), but it's big enough to function as a "second screen" to interact with TV programming.
The iPhone 4s and iPhone 5 have beautiful displays (more on that next) and I think the 3.5 and 4 inch screens are ideal for email, texting, and facebooking. But the Note 2 clearly dominates in web browsing, viewing pinterest and twitter, and using apps like Pulse News, the calendar, and task lists.
The size isn't for everyone, but I use my phone as a tablet 85% of the time and as a phone 15%. For me, this is a no brainer. (I also have a huge head, so it doesn't look as ridiculous when I make calls on it. You small-headed people should really consider this, as you will look foolish).
Advantage: Note 2
Screen Quality
After purchasing the note 2, I viewed the display as I walked out to my car. I've read hundreds of reviews on AMOLED and LCD phone screens, and many of them argue that the iPhone (LCD) is much brighter, better in the sun, and has truer color reproduction. These arguments are absolutely right.
If you plan on reading outdoors a lot, the Note 2 pales in comparison to the iPhone 5. The Note 2's screen isn't terribly reflective, but it just isn't that bright, and the whites are more gray. Both the iPhone and the Note 2 have great black levels, but the Note 2 AMOLED has hyper-real coloring. (This improves when you select "movie" mode). The pixel density of the Note 2 is substantially lower than the iPhone and Galaxy S3 (and pretty much every other new phone) because it's so huge. This is noticeable, but it isn't a big issue especially if you hold the phone further from your face.
Text and graphics look sharp on the Note 2, and I have no concerns with the pixel density on most things, but it's clearly not as sharp as the iPhone. ( the "netflix" on the netflix app icon is kind of blurred).
While I see this as a big advantage for the iPhone, the Note 2's screen is still fantastic. Most people after an hour or so of use will not have any concerns about it.
Large Advantage: iPhone 5 (and 4s and 4, but the Note 2 decimates the 3gs)
Build Quality
Going in, I had some major concerns about the "plasticky" feel of the Note 2 and S 3. However, I've been pleasantly surprised. The phone is solid in my hand, and I can hold any corner without feeling any cracking or settling, even though the pack of the phone is very flexible. The screen is made out of the high quality Corning Gorilla Glass 2, and the border of the phone is solid. However, some may have concerns with the plastic feel of the back plate, and others may worry that the massive surface area is prone to breaking. I won't be drop testing this phone, but it is obvious the iPhone wins in build quality. The 4s could kill a burglar, and the iPhone 5 seems super light and super strong.
Still, I don't think this will matter to most people. The main issue in the feel of the phone is the size, not the build quality. If you can get use to the size, you won't have concerns about quality.
Advantage: iPhone 5
Operating System
As a convert to Android, I could go on and on about this. I absolutely love Jellybean 4.1. There are many features that I love, and iOS 6 seems very old fashioned. Of course, some differences and glitches really bother me, but perhaps I'll have another post on this.
I think the availability of widgets is overplayed by some google fanboys, but the ability to have one screen dedicated to my email is HUGE for me, as emailing is the primary reason I have a smart phone. I love the endless options for phone settings, and the huge amount of control I have.
This really comes down to preference, but I personally see many limitations in iOS that I don't see in Android 4.1. Also, Android makes it so easy to set your cursor when you are typing, something that is incredibly frustrating in iOS. So far, the Note 2 has been able to accomplish every task I want it to accomplish, and each and every App I've grown to love is available through the google store.
A surprising development is how all of my favorite apps look better on Android. I'm flabbergasted to be honest. Pulse news, Netflix, email, calendar, all the google apps, pinterest, facebook, twitter, stumble upon and more are all more accessible and beautiful on Android. It's hard for me to separate the screen size from the app quality, as it does make a difference, but all things being equal, I think the android designs are superior.
The internet browser on Android decimates mobile Safari. But that's just my opinion.
I will note that the responsiveness of the touch screen is better in iOS, but the Note 2 is very good, and a huge improvement over android phones from 2 years ago.
Advantage: Note 2
Speed
Both phones are fast... really fast. The Note 2 is freaky. As long as my internet connection can keep up, stumble upon response almost instantaneously. Switching between apps is faster than my new office computer. There have been a few hiccups here and there, but the Note 2's quad core processor is amazing.
The Note 2. does run a little hot when you watch netflix, but I've found this to be the case with most phones and computers.
Advantage: Tie
Battery Life
All I can say in this category is that I worked the Note 2 very hard on the second day. The battery in this thing is huge (3100) which is good, since the screen is huge. A full hour playing a graphics intense game (for testing, of course) a full episode of Breaking Bad on netflix, web browsing much of the day, emailing all day, even some draw something (that app sucks battery like crazy), and the note 2 made it from 7:00 AM to Midnight (5% battery left). I haven't used it as intensely today, but it is at 94% after being unplugged for 6 hours.
This clearly beats my wife's iPhone 4s, but most benchmarks show it having similar performance to the iPhone 4.
Advantage: This is probably a tie for most people and it will change depending on your use. Both phones tend to make it a full day with no problem.
Speakers
The back speaker on the Note 2 has better volume and sound than the iPhone 4s. I haven't used the iPhone 5 enough to know how it compares.
It is a phone speaker, of course, so it isn't a bose sound system, but the volume and quality were good even when I turned the volume up on Netflix.
Advantage: Probably the Note 2, as iPhones don't have great speakers in their tiny compact bodies. But I don't know for sure.
Calling
This is an area that clearly dominates the iPhone. The sound quality of the Note 2 took me back to my old home-phone days. the iPhone is really a terrible phone (but a fantastic device). The Note 2 call quality was as good as I'd ever need, but I'm sure there are better performing phones out there.
Advantage: Note 2
Other Features
The Note 2 has S Pen and a stylus. I'm still not sure how much I'll use this, but it is very cool. It follows my handwriting well with little to no lag, and playing draw something is a blast. The text recognition is very good, but I have trouble getting spaces in the right place. I think this is a luxury that most people won't really care about, but it is cool and the stylus fits snugly in the phone. I almost don't notice it.
Siri vs. S Voice: I don't really use these features, but I think S Voice is a passable competitor. I don't think this should go into your decision making. Both are equally awesome and equally crappy.
Miscellaneous Hardware
I'm not a hardware expert, but it's hard to beat this Note 2 in terms of guts. The Quad Core processor and 2GB of Ram future-proof this device for a while.
The Note 2 is limited by the 16GB of internal storage, which is more like 11GB after all the samsung and att crap is loaded.
The iPhone has more options with internal memory, but you can pick up a 64GB SD card for the Note 2 for around 50 bucks. That's a ton more storage with little trouble. I don't think I'll really need it, but it's nice.
SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE II
Pros:
The big screen is really a huge benefit and relatively easy to get used to
Incredibly fast
Great features in Android 4.1
Great Battery Life
Expandable storage
Cons:
Screen isn't that bright
Touch screen is less responsive than iPhone
It might be too large for some one-handed use
It's $299 with a contract.
I work on a Lenovo PC, my home computer is a 2009 Macbook Pro 13.3'', and I've owned an iPhone 3gs and an iPhone 4. I've also used my wife's iPhone 4s extensively.
I finally decided to switch from my three year love-affair with iPhone to a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 (after months of research, finally deciding on the Nexus 4, the Nexus 4 selling out, and absolutely loving the Galaxy Note 2 at the AT&T store.)
In order to review my transition and the Galaxy Note 2, I will be comparing the Galaxy Note 2 to the iPhone 5 and iPhone 4s.
Let's get to it.
Size & Weight
Handling the Phone
This is really the first big issue, with a massive 5.5'' screen, the Note 2 is imposing. The size difference between the 4s and the Note 2 is incredible. I showed the Note 2 to my boss the day I purchased it and he just started laughing. A friend asked me if I planned to avoid jeans for the next two years.
The phone fits easily into my dress-pants pocket, and has no problem slipping in my non-skinny jeans pocket. I like to store the phone in my dress-shirt pocket as well (which is stupid) and the top of the phone pokes out by about an inch.
I have average-sized hands: with my hand fully extended the distance from the end of my thumb to the end of my pinky finger is just about 9 inches, and the distance from the end of my thumb to the end of my index finger is about 7.5 inches.
I was annoyed by the phone dimensions at first. The keyboard pops up too far from the email send button for my thumb to reach both without shifting my hand, and texting with one hand provides a "i'm going to drop this thing" sensation.
That said, I adjusted to the size in about 24 hours. The phone is so thin, and the design makes it easy to hold. I can easily grasp the phone to read articles without getting worn out (like when you hold the corner of an iPad for too long). I estimate I can easily do 85% of my normal activities without needing the second hand.
That said, think it is important to buy a case for this thing. I've treated it like a newborn baby, and I'm in constant fear of dropping it onto its massive face. My case should arrive in a couple days.
Viewing the Display
The size of the display is amazing for daily use. I was afraid it wouldn't be big enough to use like a tablet, and that the size would be cumbersome for a phone. I was wrong. In landscape mode, I can see a list of emails with a preview window (like on outlook or gmail) I can open two applications at the same time, reading a webpage while typing information into a note or email. I can comfortably view full webpages without resorting to the web version, and movies and TV look amazing. The Note 2 is by no means a TV replacement (some prefer to watch movies on their close-to-face iPads over smallish TVs), but it's big enough to function as a "second screen" to interact with TV programming.
The iPhone 4s and iPhone 5 have beautiful displays (more on that next) and I think the 3.5 and 4 inch screens are ideal for email, texting, and facebooking. But the Note 2 clearly dominates in web browsing, viewing pinterest and twitter, and using apps like Pulse News, the calendar, and task lists.
The size isn't for everyone, but I use my phone as a tablet 85% of the time and as a phone 15%. For me, this is a no brainer. (I also have a huge head, so it doesn't look as ridiculous when I make calls on it. You small-headed people should really consider this, as you will look foolish).
Advantage: Note 2
Screen Quality
After purchasing the note 2, I viewed the display as I walked out to my car. I've read hundreds of reviews on AMOLED and LCD phone screens, and many of them argue that the iPhone (LCD) is much brighter, better in the sun, and has truer color reproduction. These arguments are absolutely right.
If you plan on reading outdoors a lot, the Note 2 pales in comparison to the iPhone 5. The Note 2's screen isn't terribly reflective, but it just isn't that bright, and the whites are more gray. Both the iPhone and the Note 2 have great black levels, but the Note 2 AMOLED has hyper-real coloring. (This improves when you select "movie" mode). The pixel density of the Note 2 is substantially lower than the iPhone and Galaxy S3 (and pretty much every other new phone) because it's so huge. This is noticeable, but it isn't a big issue especially if you hold the phone further from your face.
Text and graphics look sharp on the Note 2, and I have no concerns with the pixel density on most things, but it's clearly not as sharp as the iPhone. ( the "netflix" on the netflix app icon is kind of blurred).
While I see this as a big advantage for the iPhone, the Note 2's screen is still fantastic. Most people after an hour or so of use will not have any concerns about it.
Large Advantage: iPhone 5 (and 4s and 4, but the Note 2 decimates the 3gs)
Build Quality
Going in, I had some major concerns about the "plasticky" feel of the Note 2 and S 3. However, I've been pleasantly surprised. The phone is solid in my hand, and I can hold any corner without feeling any cracking or settling, even though the pack of the phone is very flexible. The screen is made out of the high quality Corning Gorilla Glass 2, and the border of the phone is solid. However, some may have concerns with the plastic feel of the back plate, and others may worry that the massive surface area is prone to breaking. I won't be drop testing this phone, but it is obvious the iPhone wins in build quality. The 4s could kill a burglar, and the iPhone 5 seems super light and super strong.
Still, I don't think this will matter to most people. The main issue in the feel of the phone is the size, not the build quality. If you can get use to the size, you won't have concerns about quality.
Advantage: iPhone 5
Operating System
As a convert to Android, I could go on and on about this. I absolutely love Jellybean 4.1. There are many features that I love, and iOS 6 seems very old fashioned. Of course, some differences and glitches really bother me, but perhaps I'll have another post on this.
I think the availability of widgets is overplayed by some google fanboys, but the ability to have one screen dedicated to my email is HUGE for me, as emailing is the primary reason I have a smart phone. I love the endless options for phone settings, and the huge amount of control I have.
This really comes down to preference, but I personally see many limitations in iOS that I don't see in Android 4.1. Also, Android makes it so easy to set your cursor when you are typing, something that is incredibly frustrating in iOS. So far, the Note 2 has been able to accomplish every task I want it to accomplish, and each and every App I've grown to love is available through the google store.
A surprising development is how all of my favorite apps look better on Android. I'm flabbergasted to be honest. Pulse news, Netflix, email, calendar, all the google apps, pinterest, facebook, twitter, stumble upon and more are all more accessible and beautiful on Android. It's hard for me to separate the screen size from the app quality, as it does make a difference, but all things being equal, I think the android designs are superior.
The internet browser on Android decimates mobile Safari. But that's just my opinion.
I will note that the responsiveness of the touch screen is better in iOS, but the Note 2 is very good, and a huge improvement over android phones from 2 years ago.
Advantage: Note 2
Speed
Both phones are fast... really fast. The Note 2 is freaky. As long as my internet connection can keep up, stumble upon response almost instantaneously. Switching between apps is faster than my new office computer. There have been a few hiccups here and there, but the Note 2's quad core processor is amazing.
The Note 2. does run a little hot when you watch netflix, but I've found this to be the case with most phones and computers.
Advantage: Tie
Battery Life
All I can say in this category is that I worked the Note 2 very hard on the second day. The battery in this thing is huge (3100) which is good, since the screen is huge. A full hour playing a graphics intense game (for testing, of course) a full episode of Breaking Bad on netflix, web browsing much of the day, emailing all day, even some draw something (that app sucks battery like crazy), and the note 2 made it from 7:00 AM to Midnight (5% battery left). I haven't used it as intensely today, but it is at 94% after being unplugged for 6 hours.
This clearly beats my wife's iPhone 4s, but most benchmarks show it having similar performance to the iPhone 4.
Advantage: This is probably a tie for most people and it will change depending on your use. Both phones tend to make it a full day with no problem.
Speakers
The back speaker on the Note 2 has better volume and sound than the iPhone 4s. I haven't used the iPhone 5 enough to know how it compares.
It is a phone speaker, of course, so it isn't a bose sound system, but the volume and quality were good even when I turned the volume up on Netflix.
Advantage: Probably the Note 2, as iPhones don't have great speakers in their tiny compact bodies. But I don't know for sure.
Calling
This is an area that clearly dominates the iPhone. The sound quality of the Note 2 took me back to my old home-phone days. the iPhone is really a terrible phone (but a fantastic device). The Note 2 call quality was as good as I'd ever need, but I'm sure there are better performing phones out there.
Advantage: Note 2
Other Features
The Note 2 has S Pen and a stylus. I'm still not sure how much I'll use this, but it is very cool. It follows my handwriting well with little to no lag, and playing draw something is a blast. The text recognition is very good, but I have trouble getting spaces in the right place. I think this is a luxury that most people won't really care about, but it is cool and the stylus fits snugly in the phone. I almost don't notice it.
Siri vs. S Voice: I don't really use these features, but I think S Voice is a passable competitor. I don't think this should go into your decision making. Both are equally awesome and equally crappy.
Miscellaneous Hardware
I'm not a hardware expert, but it's hard to beat this Note 2 in terms of guts. The Quad Core processor and 2GB of Ram future-proof this device for a while.
The Note 2 is limited by the 16GB of internal storage, which is more like 11GB after all the samsung and att crap is loaded.
The iPhone has more options with internal memory, but you can pick up a 64GB SD card for the Note 2 for around 50 bucks. That's a ton more storage with little trouble. I don't think I'll really need it, but it's nice.
SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE II
Pros:
The big screen is really a huge benefit and relatively easy to get used to
Incredibly fast
Great features in Android 4.1
Great Battery Life
Expandable storage
Cons:
Screen isn't that bright
Touch screen is less responsive than iPhone
It might be too large for some one-handed use
It's $299 with a contract.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Dream Team vs. Dreaming Team?
Kobe is getting flack for expressing confidence in his 2012 olympic team. People are mostly pissed because it's Kobe, and because he said the dream team was old. The dream team wasn't that old, but Magic had been out of the league for a year and Bird was having significant back problems.
I don't know that the 1992 dream team would destroy the 2012 USA Basketball team. I'm just surprised that everyone else thinks they know that.
Let's go through the stats.
I think 1992 would win by six points or so, mostly because Ewing, Robinson, and Malone would dominate the paint.
STARTING FIVE: STATS FROM THE YEAR BEFORE THEIR RESPECTIVE OLYMPIC GAMES.
CENTER (Moderate Advantage 1992 = 10 to 8)
Tyson Chandler
11.3 PPG, .679 FG%, .689 FT %, 9.9 Reb/gm, 1.4 Blks per game.
Patrick Ewing
24 PPG, .522 FG%, .738 FT%, 11.3 Reb/gm, 3 Blks per game
POWER FORWARD (Virtual Tie = 10 to 10)
I don't know that the 1992 dream team would destroy the 2012 USA Basketball team. I'm just surprised that everyone else thinks they know that.
Let's go through the stats.
I think 1992 would win by six points or so, mostly because Ewing, Robinson, and Malone would dominate the paint.
STARTING FIVE: STATS FROM THE YEAR BEFORE THEIR RESPECTIVE OLYMPIC GAMES.
CENTER (Moderate Advantage 1992 = 10 to 8)
Tyson Chandler
11.3 PPG, .679 FG%, .689 FT %, 9.9 Reb/gm, 1.4 Blks per game.
Patrick Ewing
24 PPG, .522 FG%, .738 FT%, 11.3 Reb/gm, 3 Blks per game
POWER FORWARD (Virtual Tie = 10 to 10)
Kevin Durant 6' 9", 235 lbs
28 PPG, .496 FG%, .860 FT %, 8 Reb/gm, 1.2 Blks/game, 3.5 Assists/gm
Karl Malone 6'9", 259 lbs
29 PPG, .527 FG%, .770 FT%, 11.8 Reb/gm, 1 Blks/game, 3.3 Assists/gm
SMALL FORWARD (Moderate Advantage 2012 = 8 to 10)
Lebron James 6' 8", 250 lbs
27.1 PPG, .531 FG%, .746 FT %, 7.9 Reb/gm, .8 Blks/game, 6.2 Assists/gm
Larry Bird 6'9", 220 lbs
20.2 PPG, .466 FG%, .926 FT%, 9.6 Reb/gm, .84 Blks/game, 6.8 Assists/gm
SHOOTING GUARD (Slight to Moderate Advantage 1992 = 10 to 8.5)
Kobe Bryant 6' 6", 205 lbs
27.9 PPG, .430 FG%, .845 FT %, 5.4 Reb/gm, .3 Blks/game, 4.6 Assists/gm
Michael Jordan 6'6", 216 lbs
30.1 PPG, .519 FG%, .832 FT%, 6.4 Reb/gm, .9 Blks/game, 6.1 Assists/gm
POINT GUARD (Tie because Magic Hadn't Played = 10 to 10)
Deron Williams 6' 3", 209 lbs
21 PPG, .407 FG%, .843 FT %, 3.3 Reb/gm, .4 Blks/game, 8.7 Assists/gm
Magic Johnson 6'9", 220 lbs (Didn't play in 1992 so these are from 1991)
19.4 PPG, .477 FG%, .906 FT%, 6.9 Reb/gm, .2 Blks/game, 12.5 Assists/gm
BENCH: STATS FROM THE YEAR BEFORE THEIR RESPECTIVE OLYMPIC GAMES.
CENTER (Substantial Advantage 1992 = 10 to 6)
David Robinson
23.2 PPG, .551 FG%, .701 FT %, 12.2 Reb/gm, 4.5 Blks per game.
POWER FORWARD (Virtual Tie = 10 to 10)
Kevin Love 6'10", 260 lbs
26 PPG, .448 FG%, .824 FT %, 13.3 Reb/gm, .5 Blks/game, 2.0 Assists/gm
Anthony Davis 6'11", 220 lbs
No Stats
Christian Laettner 6'11", 235 lbs
No Stats
Charles Barkley 6'6", 250 lbs
25.6 PPG, .520 FG%, .765 FT %, 12.2 Reb/gm, 1 Blks/game, 5.1 Assists/gm
SMALL FORWARD (Slight advantage 1992 = 10 to 9)
Carmello Anthony 6'8", 230 lbs
22.6 PPG, .430 FG%, .804 FT%, 6.3 Reb/gm, .4 Blks/game, 3.6 Assists/gm
Andre Iguodala, 6'6'', 207
12.4 PPG, .454 FG%, .617 FT%, 6.1 Reb/gm, .5 Blks/game, 5.5 Assists/gm
Scottie Pippen 6'7", 210 lbs
18.6 PPG, .473 FG%, .663 FT%, 7.7 Reb/gm, .9 Blks/game, 6.3 Assists/gm
Chris Mullin 6'7", 215 lbs
25.6 PPG, .524 FG%, .833 FT%, 5.6 Reb/gm, .8 Blks/game, 3.5 Assists/gm
SHOOTING GUARD (Slight to Moderate Advantage 1992 = 10 to 8.5)
James Harden 6'5'', 220 lbs
16.8 PPG, .491 FG%, .846 FT %, 4.1 Reb/gm, .3 Blks/game, 3.7 Assists/gm
Clyde Drexler 6'7", 220 lbs
25 PPG, .470 FG%, .794 FT%, 6.6 Reb/gm, .9 Blks/game, 6.7 Assists/gm
POINT GUARD (Moderate Advantage 2012 = 8 to 10)
Russell Westbrook 6' 3", 187 lbs
23.6 PPG, .457 FG%, .823 FT %, 4.6 Reb/gm, .3 Blks/game, 5.5 Assists/gm
Chris Paul 6' 0", 183 lbs
19.8 PPG, .478 FG%, .861 FT %, 3.6 Reb/gm, .1 Blks/game, 9.1 Assists/gm
John Stockton 6'1", 175 lbs (Didn't play in 1992 so these are from 1991)
15.8 PPG, .482 FG%, .842 FT%, 3.3 Reb/gm, .3 Blks/game, 13.7 Assists/gm
If you assume all of these players are at their best I don't think it's unreasonable to say 2012 would put up a fight. Jordan wouldn't really dominate Kobe if both players were on in the clutch. (Kobe was pretty clutch in the last olympics.) Lebron would have a significant advantage over Bird which he could exploit over and over (or maybe Bird would guard Durant, which would lead to a similar result). Magic could use his size to exploit Williams, Paul, and Westbrook, but Magic was a bit unpredictable in 1992. Stockton is one of the best point guards ever, but he worked best with a team he was familiar with. I think Paul and Westbrook could have frustrated him. I love Malone, but I don't think he'd have much of an advantage over over Durant and/or Lebron (with some Kevin Love and Anthony Davis Mixed in.)
I think 2012 would have a bit of a speed advantage, while 1992 would have a significant size advantage. The Admiral would make the difference. Chandler and Anthony Davis would face an onslaught from Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Barkley and Laettner.
Still, if Kobe, Durant, Lebron, and Carmello are on.... they would be tough to guard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)