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.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
The Problem with Sids Statistics: Truthiness
A sleep deprived mother wakes to the sound of a soft cry at 5:15 AM. This will be the 8th time in three hours that the mother will get up and re position her baby's binky. She just can't do this anymore. She walks in to the baby's room and notices that the child is suffering from some gas-related discomfort. Desperate, the Mother moves the baby onto her tummy. The baby moves into a little ball position and gets rid of some gas, and then falls fast asleep for two hours. Two...precious....hours.
Well according to many doctors and websites, stomach sleepers are twice as likely to die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("SIDS").
Unfortunately, this is a classic example of statistical bologna. Look, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't take precautions, or that it's a good idea to go against the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that "back is best." I am saying that the way the statistics are presented is bull crap.
If you look at the data, the "double risk" conclusion is based on the change in SIDS deaths after the "back to sleep" campaign in 1992-1994. SIDS rates dropped from approximately 14 deaths per 10,000 babies in 1992 down to just under 7 deaths per 10,000 babies now. Yeah, that's a 50% reduction all right! And that reduction is enough evidence for the CDC, AAP, and NHI to say that you should NEVER let your child sleep on her stomach, not even for a nap, unless she has a significant digestive disorder and your doctor tells you to try stomach sleeping.
A few things:
1: While the reduction in SIDS did accelerate after "back to sleep," the SIDS rate was already coming down. The overall infant mortality rate was also coming down quickly before the back to sleep campaign.
2: The SIDS rate continued to decrease long after the "back to sleep" campaign was commonly known among health care practitioners and new moms.
3: A massive campaign against SIDS would have increased SIDS awareness, and other preventative measures were surely taken.
4: Doctors and researchers admit they can only show a strong correlation, not a causal connection, between stomach sleeping and SIDS.
5: Not all 50% reductions are equal. If the rate changed from 22% to 11%, that would be an incredibly significant 50% reduction. In this case, the change was from 0.14% to 0.07% where at least half of the reduction occurred more than 4 years after the campaign.
6: SIDS is the third leading cause of infant death after congenital defects and low birth weight. Also, low birth weight increases the likelihood of a SIDS death, but I'm not sure which cause gets blamed.
Apparently more kids die of SIDS in the winter, even though colder room temperatures might prevent temperatures. Heaters working too well?
Black children are far more likely than white children to die of sids, and boys are more likely than girls.
A pacifier might also reduce the risk of SIDS.
SIDS rates are higher when babies sleep in the parental bed, but lower when babies sleep in a separate bed in a different room.
One theory suggests that SIDS is caused by deep sleep and brains that fail to wake babies up when oxygen levels dip too low.
When you read the SIDS sources, common words include "might" "may" and "possibly." I read an article by one doctor who said, "if we knew what caused SIDS, we wouldn't call it SIDS." Finally, some researchers think that a large part of the SIDS rate reduction was due to reclassification of suffocation deaths which used to be considered SIDS.
Again, it's better safe than sorry, but SIDS is so terrifying that we are particularly sensitive to the risks.
We aren't as sensitive in other areas. For example, my wife could conceivably never take our children out of the house. The risk of dying in a car accident is infinitely larger if you ride in cars than if you don't.
My wife could refuse to take my toddler to church or allow her to go to nursery with her little friends in order to prevent my toddler from catching something and infecting our infant.
My wife could decide to not allow anyone without a whooping cough vaccine to enter our home.
I sincerely doubt a Doctor would recommend that a mother do any of those things. Is that simply because SIDS is far more likely to result in death? Probably, but I think the manipulation of the statistics happens because SIDS is terrifying. It's so terrifying to me, that even if there were bull crap statistics that suggested I should wake up my baby every 30 minutes (which would almost certainly limit SIDS risk) I would consider it... until I fell into a sleep deprivation coma.
Thoughts?
Well according to many doctors and websites, stomach sleepers are twice as likely to die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ("SIDS").
Unfortunately, this is a classic example of statistical bologna. Look, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't take precautions, or that it's a good idea to go against the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation that "back is best." I am saying that the way the statistics are presented is bull crap.
If you look at the data, the "double risk" conclusion is based on the change in SIDS deaths after the "back to sleep" campaign in 1992-1994. SIDS rates dropped from approximately 14 deaths per 10,000 babies in 1992 down to just under 7 deaths per 10,000 babies now. Yeah, that's a 50% reduction all right! And that reduction is enough evidence for the CDC, AAP, and NHI to say that you should NEVER let your child sleep on her stomach, not even for a nap, unless she has a significant digestive disorder and your doctor tells you to try stomach sleeping.
A few things:
1: While the reduction in SIDS did accelerate after "back to sleep," the SIDS rate was already coming down. The overall infant mortality rate was also coming down quickly before the back to sleep campaign.
2: The SIDS rate continued to decrease long after the "back to sleep" campaign was commonly known among health care practitioners and new moms.
3: A massive campaign against SIDS would have increased SIDS awareness, and other preventative measures were surely taken.
4: Doctors and researchers admit they can only show a strong correlation, not a causal connection, between stomach sleeping and SIDS.
5: Not all 50% reductions are equal. If the rate changed from 22% to 11%, that would be an incredibly significant 50% reduction. In this case, the change was from 0.14% to 0.07% where at least half of the reduction occurred more than 4 years after the campaign.
6: SIDS is the third leading cause of infant death after congenital defects and low birth weight. Also, low birth weight increases the likelihood of a SIDS death, but I'm not sure which cause gets blamed.
Apparently more kids die of SIDS in the winter, even though colder room temperatures might prevent temperatures. Heaters working too well?
Black children are far more likely than white children to die of sids, and boys are more likely than girls.
A pacifier might also reduce the risk of SIDS.
SIDS rates are higher when babies sleep in the parental bed, but lower when babies sleep in a separate bed in a different room.
One theory suggests that SIDS is caused by deep sleep and brains that fail to wake babies up when oxygen levels dip too low.
When you read the SIDS sources, common words include "might" "may" and "possibly." I read an article by one doctor who said, "if we knew what caused SIDS, we wouldn't call it SIDS." Finally, some researchers think that a large part of the SIDS rate reduction was due to reclassification of suffocation deaths which used to be considered SIDS.
Again, it's better safe than sorry, but SIDS is so terrifying that we are particularly sensitive to the risks.
We aren't as sensitive in other areas. For example, my wife could conceivably never take our children out of the house. The risk of dying in a car accident is infinitely larger if you ride in cars than if you don't.
My wife could refuse to take my toddler to church or allow her to go to nursery with her little friends in order to prevent my toddler from catching something and infecting our infant.
My wife could decide to not allow anyone without a whooping cough vaccine to enter our home.
I sincerely doubt a Doctor would recommend that a mother do any of those things. Is that simply because SIDS is far more likely to result in death? Probably, but I think the manipulation of the statistics happens because SIDS is terrifying. It's so terrifying to me, that even if there were bull crap statistics that suggested I should wake up my baby every 30 minutes (which would almost certainly limit SIDS risk) I would consider it... until I fell into a sleep deprivation coma.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Public Enemy #1: Procrastination
(Disclaimer, this post was written during "free time," when I probably should have been exercising or sleeping)
I think the real disease attacking the work ethic of young adults and children today isn't specifically video games, movies, social networking, texting, or other time wasters--these are just the symptoms--the problem is procrastination. Why do young people procrastinate so much? Yeah, I'm going to blame schools.
I typically think of procrastination as putting something off for tomorrow. Failure to act immediately, driven by the existence of extra time. The dictionary defines "procrastinate" as a verb meaning to defer action or put off till another time. I think it's more than that.
As a Mormon missionary in Taiwan, I always worked with a partner, or "companion" as we called them. Each week, my companion and I had a designated time set aside to plan for the rest of the week, and we were instructed to make goals for the week, for each day, and for each hour of the day. We were also instructed to plan out every 15 minute block of time with separate strategies on how to meet those goals. This included planning for travel time, eating, bathroom breaks, and everything else you could think of.
I discovered quicky that I was either poor at planning or implementation, because my companions and I were constantly modifying our plans (or ignoring them) in favor of doing something else. Often, once we failed to adhere to our planning for an hour or two, the whole day's plan would go out the window.
My plans weren't usually derailed by external forces like, say, getting hit by a car (happened twice). In most cases my companion and I either lost focus (33% of the time) or we made deliberate changes. I never considered it at the time, but I subconsciously valued planning in the moment over planning for the long term even though I truly believed that goal oriented, long-term planning was more effective. That's procrastination. You make a goal, you determine how to achieve that goal, and you do something else.
This wasn't disruptive during my mission, because the drop in efficiency was not substantial. Rather than knocking on doors to spread a message, we would talk to people coming out of the subway station. The change could have been due to anything from laziness to a strategy shift based on new information, but it was still procrastination. Fortunately, I didn't have distractions to fill the gaps
However, in academic and professional areas, procrastination can be incredibly harmful, even debilitating. I can't tell you how many bank tellers I worked with who would spend time cleaning out their printers with canned air in lieu of handling mundane paperwork. I've been tempted hundreds of times to clean up my desk and work area in the name of efficiency when I still have a long to-do list staring me in the face. In those times when I've given in, I even broke out the furniture polish and canned air.
There's no way I would claim that the task of polishing my desk is more important than urgent work for a client. There's also no way that polishing my desk during a busy time will help me reach the goals I have set for myself. Nevertheless, when a person believes there is time available in the future for a task, then it becomes harder to balance what tasks are more important.
In other words, if I was planning for an entire week, I would separate tasks into categories: (Covey Matrix)
1: Urgent & Important (Goal-related activities with pending deadlines)
2: Non-Urgent & Important (Goal-related activities with no deadlines, like planning or education)
3: Urgent & Unimportant and (Deadlines for things that are not goal-related)
4: non-urgent & non important. (Waste)
From a birds-eye view, I would never plan time for a #4 activity at the expense of the others. However, If it's 8 AM and I think I have 8 hours of time and five hours of work to do in category #1, I suddenly I lose the ability to realize that spending my first two hours on waste will generally come at the expense of planning and education when those inevitable emergencies and delays pop up.
Consider this from New Yorker book review:
"Most of the contributors to the new book agree that this peculiar irrationality stems from our relationship to time—in particular, from a tendency that economists call “hyperbolic discounting.” A two-stage experiment provides a classic illustration: In the first stage, people are offered the choice between a hundred dollars today or a hundred and ten dollars tomorrow; in the second stage, they choose between a hundred dollars a month from now or a hundred and ten dollars a month and a day from now. In substance, the two choices are identical: wait an extra day, get an extra ten bucks. Yet, in the first stage many people choose to take the smaller sum immediately, whereas in the second they prefer to wait one more day and get the extra ten bucks. In other words, hyperbolic discounters are able to make the rational choice when they’re thinking about the future, but, as the present gets closer, short-term considerations overwhelm their long-term goals"
But why do people lack the ability to prioritize in the moment? Why do so many people allow themselves to be distracted when there is important work to be done?
Is it because we are hit from a very young age with information, media, and recreational overload? Maybe that's part of it. But the real culprit is: School. Yes, School.
Now I know what those three people who read my blog regularly are saying: "John, why do you blame teachers for everything." First, I don't. Second, Teachers and schools are directly involved in the development of work ethic. I don't have time to develop statistical evidence, so I'm obviously working off assumptions here, but is it that big of a leap that schools play a major role?
Consider a normal school day. You get to school with all of your friends and distractions everywhere, and then you are corralled into a classroom. You are designed to be loud and active, but you have to suppress your very nature and wait for recess and lunchtime. You sit around and "learn" so that you can do work which is due at a later date to prepare for tests at a later date. (Information that will be mostly forgotten) Most or all of your potential rewards are based on future performance. Furthermore, most students believe that they can always make up for a poor performance or two.
Basically, students are engineered to believe that they can always make up for today's performance with a good performance tomorrow. In many classes, they can struggle for weeks without any long term consequences.
I'm not advocating for harsh punishment at a young age, but it seems to me like this trend continues throughout public education and even into college. In law school, you can essentially sleep through the first half of the semester and still get great grades come finals time.
Consider athletics. You slack off in practice, you're benched for the game. You miss practice, you're benched for the game. You come to the game unprepared, you lose...publicly, and you might not get another chance next game. Why do you think so many schools try to enforce academic standards with athletic penalties? It's instant feedback, instant punishment, instant reward, which are MIA in our schools. Students are graduating with bad habits, and some employers have given in.
You have adult men with responsibilities who will put off studying, work, sleep, or even sex to play video games. You have countless employees who will read articles, peruse Facebook, and write blog posts (oops) when they should be working. While threats of termination of the personal or professional relationship may motivate a person to temporarily change, I believe this bad behavior is not a result of a lack of love or duty. It's due to a condition developed at a young age. Your time in school as a child taught you over and over and over that now means little, and later means a lot.
We can combat this problem through immediate rewards and punishments. Students who demonstrate preparedness in class should be free from homework assignments. At a certain age, Students should have the opportunity to advance through classes faster if they can test out. Students should be ranked every week and the top half should be published in order. Each and every week is a new opportunity to shine in front of your teachers, parents, and peers. Benefits and punishments should be specifically outlined and enforced, and benefits for short term diligence should be larger.
These are just a few examples. I know they have problems, and I'm sure there would be countless excuses if any of these initiatives were implemented on a broad scale.
Even though the solution may be hard, the first step is admitting there is a problem... but not until you reorganize your book collection or clean out your DVR.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
A Great Article About Unions.
I really like this balanced approach to the education problem our country faces:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-vs-teachers-unions-the-inconvenient-truth/2012/05/30/gJQA7KVv1U_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-vs-teachers-unions-the-inconvenient-truth/2012/05/30/gJQA7KVv1U_story.html
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Teachers and Servers: Don't you dare talk bad about them!
I am surprised with the vigorous defenses people make when I talk negatively against teachers or servers/waiters. I could criticize any profession aside from that of a homemaker or soldier, without receiving a passionate response, but my criticisms of teachers and waiters make even the meek write me messages in capital letters.
Why? (Let's put aside the fact, for a moment, that I criticize teacher compensation structures, not teachers.)
Low wages?
Are you all so protective of teachers and servers because they don't make much? Garbage men, court clerks, and bank tellers don't make much. Produce boys at grocery stores don't make much? Why would you protect a waiter more vigorously than a cashier? Besides, Waiters make at least minimum wage--they have to--and teachers make as much as social workers, court clerks, and even some nurses. Furthermore, Teachers and Waiters know how much they will be paid when they sign up. Their base wages are basically more predictable than any other profession.
Because everyone is related to a teacher or a waiter?
Really? The entire professional should be free from criticism because you know someone? Your Aunt or sister is a great teacher so all teachers should make twice as much?
Because they are picked on so much?
So are lawyers. People hate us. Usually they hate us because of one isolated run-in with an attorney or based on some running joke. But nobody defends lawyers.. My wife wouldn't even defend my profession. :)
Because people underestimate how hard the job is?
Yeah, I get it: teachers work more than 9 months a year, and waiters don't always get great tips. I'm not sure I understand why that should save them from criticism.
Because their income potential is limited?
This one makes sense. Although some attorneys and medical residents actually make FAR less than teachers per hour (even super teachers), those attorneys and doctors can go on to make much more. Still though, is this a surprise?
Because they have no control?
Teacher's don't tend to open their own businesses or move to more exciting fields. The unions and governments hold teachers down. So this makes them blameless? Waiters are stuck with base wages of 2.50 an hour and they can't seem to move up, but they could leave and do something else.
Because I'm not qualified to criticize?
I'm not saying I am qualified to fix the educational system, but I think I have enough experience to point out deficiencies in the system. Besides, since when does someone have to be "qualified" before they can criticize something? How does the old cliche` go? I don't need to know how to sing to tell if someone is out of key? I have attended eleven schools in my life. (4 elementary schools, a "sixth-grade center", one middle school, one high school, one college, and two universities.) I estimate I've taken classes from 60-75 teachers. I've been involved in termination hearings for teachers with tenure. I think I can recognize that there is a MASSIVE difference in the performance of teachers and schools and they all tend to get paid based on anything but ability. I would think effective, hard-working teachers would be losing their minds over the current education system.
I don't think I am qualified to criticize waiters... so I don't. But people mostly get upset when I criticize the merits of tipping in America.
I know it's probably a combination of these and other reasons, but I am impressed by the sensitivity.
Why? (Let's put aside the fact, for a moment, that I criticize teacher compensation structures, not teachers.)
Low wages?
Are you all so protective of teachers and servers because they don't make much? Garbage men, court clerks, and bank tellers don't make much. Produce boys at grocery stores don't make much? Why would you protect a waiter more vigorously than a cashier? Besides, Waiters make at least minimum wage--they have to--and teachers make as much as social workers, court clerks, and even some nurses. Furthermore, Teachers and Waiters know how much they will be paid when they sign up. Their base wages are basically more predictable than any other profession.
Because everyone is related to a teacher or a waiter?
Really? The entire professional should be free from criticism because you know someone? Your Aunt or sister is a great teacher so all teachers should make twice as much?
Because they are picked on so much?
So are lawyers. People hate us. Usually they hate us because of one isolated run-in with an attorney or based on some running joke. But nobody defends lawyers.. My wife wouldn't even defend my profession. :)
Because people underestimate how hard the job is?
Yeah, I get it: teachers work more than 9 months a year, and waiters don't always get great tips. I'm not sure I understand why that should save them from criticism.
Because their income potential is limited?
This one makes sense. Although some attorneys and medical residents actually make FAR less than teachers per hour (even super teachers), those attorneys and doctors can go on to make much more. Still though, is this a surprise?
Because they have no control?
Teacher's don't tend to open their own businesses or move to more exciting fields. The unions and governments hold teachers down. So this makes them blameless? Waiters are stuck with base wages of 2.50 an hour and they can't seem to move up, but they could leave and do something else.
Because I'm not qualified to criticize?
I'm not saying I am qualified to fix the educational system, but I think I have enough experience to point out deficiencies in the system. Besides, since when does someone have to be "qualified" before they can criticize something? How does the old cliche` go? I don't need to know how to sing to tell if someone is out of key? I have attended eleven schools in my life. (4 elementary schools, a "sixth-grade center", one middle school, one high school, one college, and two universities.) I estimate I've taken classes from 60-75 teachers. I've been involved in termination hearings for teachers with tenure. I think I can recognize that there is a MASSIVE difference in the performance of teachers and schools and they all tend to get paid based on anything but ability. I would think effective, hard-working teachers would be losing their minds over the current education system.
I don't think I am qualified to criticize waiters... so I don't. But people mostly get upset when I criticize the merits of tipping in America.
I know it's probably a combination of these and other reasons, but I am impressed by the sensitivity.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Ted Talks: Dreams and Responsibility and Brainwashing
Most people don't have time to "find their passion," so they need to learn how to develop their current situation into their passion. This can happen only if you convince yourself that you must be incredibly good at even what you don't like doing.
Last week, I found myself bored on a four-hour drive, so I downloaded the "TED" app on my phone and listened to some remarkable Ted Talks. While I was completely overtaken by a new fascination with TED, I couldn't fight back the dissonance I felt. It was a dissonance between Passion, Dreams, and Responsibility.
In Steve Jobs' legendary Stanford commencement address, he emphasized that the secret to success and happiness was to find your passion. I suppose you could call that address the "Gospel of Jobs." He didn't come up with the idea, but he definitely popularized the idea into a near-cliche. My Dad's response to this type of talk is always, "Go be a pharmacist, and find your passion outside of work."
Several of the TED talks I listened to mentioned passion and dreams, and a few of them even referred directly to the Jobs' address. One talk spoke about how you will fail to have a great career because you will fail to either find your passion or follow it (mostly because you are scared.)
While the presenters of the TED talks were incredibly inspiring, and undoubtedly successful in their own fields, none of them seemed to acknowledge that most ordinary people simply don't have enough time or freedom to go passion hunting. I found myself saying, "Well, if I could go back to my freshman year of college, I could follow some of this advice." But THAT is the problem. If I could go back in time, I would worry constantly about how to ensure that I still find my lovely wife and two daughters. I sincerely wouldn't give them up for the world. I simply can't believe that I would have developed into the man she fell in love with, had I spent the five years preceding our meeting running about, sampling all the potential passions. I dread the thought that I would have screwed up what is great about my life by trying to replace a good career with my "one true passion."
During high school, I was exposed to virtually everything. From individual sports to the debate team, from shop class to acapella choir. I learned about economics, science, math, cooking, music, and philospophy, but I lacked the emotional maturity and experience to truly evaluate what my passion would be. At one point I thought my passion might be medicine; I wanted to be a surgeon. But how, without spending a single moment as a surgeon, could I know whether that is my true "passion."
Now I have significant family responsibilities. Would Steve Jobs and the TED talkers still recommend I hunt for my passion? How does a full-time professional with a family and other responsibilities have time for such pursuits?
I could commit full-time to statistical research and blogging, to a medical education, or to becoming an announcer at the Olympics. Those things may carry a possibility of being a passion. But they also carry a limited chance at success, combined with a guaranteed sacrifice of a great career and living situation.
Fortunately, my TED listening also introduced me to the Optimism Bias, and the Happy Secret to Better Work. While the Speakers would never dare admit it, they stealthily offered a healthy dose of realism into a syrup of idealism. You can listen to the talks by clicking on the links, but my general impression was that people can control their own passion through their perspective and attitude.
I've spoken with many law-school graduates who are now saddled with debt. Several of them are in good jobs in areas they aren't fond of. A few of them don't have jobs at all. The natural reaction is to say, "I shouldn't have gone to law school. I should have _____." So they spend their days dreaming of what could have been instead of what can be.
An unfortunate reality is that, although your passion can be found within the confines of your choices, the freedom to develop your passion is only granted if you can provide high-quality work in a timely manner. An attorney with no savings is not going to be able to instantly start teaching "law-practice management seminars" for money. He will most likely need to dominate the job he is currently in and develop the skills and connections he needs along the way. This can be negatively referred to as "paying your dues." I like to think of it as "making yourself valuable."
My suggestion, then, is to convince yourself that completing any mundane, dues-paying, rat-race work is actually an essential step to developing your passion. In order to find your passion, run straight through your challenges, instead of looking for a way around them. You will feel proud and accomplished, and your happiness will make you even more effective.
Become an expert in your field, and then carve out your passion.
Last week, I found myself bored on a four-hour drive, so I downloaded the "TED" app on my phone and listened to some remarkable Ted Talks. While I was completely overtaken by a new fascination with TED, I couldn't fight back the dissonance I felt. It was a dissonance between Passion, Dreams, and Responsibility.
In Steve Jobs' legendary Stanford commencement address, he emphasized that the secret to success and happiness was to find your passion. I suppose you could call that address the "Gospel of Jobs." He didn't come up with the idea, but he definitely popularized the idea into a near-cliche. My Dad's response to this type of talk is always, "Go be a pharmacist, and find your passion outside of work."
Several of the TED talks I listened to mentioned passion and dreams, and a few of them even referred directly to the Jobs' address. One talk spoke about how you will fail to have a great career because you will fail to either find your passion or follow it (mostly because you are scared.)
While the presenters of the TED talks were incredibly inspiring, and undoubtedly successful in their own fields, none of them seemed to acknowledge that most ordinary people simply don't have enough time or freedom to go passion hunting. I found myself saying, "Well, if I could go back to my freshman year of college, I could follow some of this advice." But THAT is the problem. If I could go back in time, I would worry constantly about how to ensure that I still find my lovely wife and two daughters. I sincerely wouldn't give them up for the world. I simply can't believe that I would have developed into the man she fell in love with, had I spent the five years preceding our meeting running about, sampling all the potential passions. I dread the thought that I would have screwed up what is great about my life by trying to replace a good career with my "one true passion."
During high school, I was exposed to virtually everything. From individual sports to the debate team, from shop class to acapella choir. I learned about economics, science, math, cooking, music, and philospophy, but I lacked the emotional maturity and experience to truly evaluate what my passion would be. At one point I thought my passion might be medicine; I wanted to be a surgeon. But how, without spending a single moment as a surgeon, could I know whether that is my true "passion."
Now I have significant family responsibilities. Would Steve Jobs and the TED talkers still recommend I hunt for my passion? How does a full-time professional with a family and other responsibilities have time for such pursuits?
I could commit full-time to statistical research and blogging, to a medical education, or to becoming an announcer at the Olympics. Those things may carry a possibility of being a passion. But they also carry a limited chance at success, combined with a guaranteed sacrifice of a great career and living situation.
Fortunately, my TED listening also introduced me to the Optimism Bias, and the Happy Secret to Better Work. While the Speakers would never dare admit it, they stealthily offered a healthy dose of realism into a syrup of idealism. You can listen to the talks by clicking on the links, but my general impression was that people can control their own passion through their perspective and attitude.
I've spoken with many law-school graduates who are now saddled with debt. Several of them are in good jobs in areas they aren't fond of. A few of them don't have jobs at all. The natural reaction is to say, "I shouldn't have gone to law school. I should have _____." So they spend their days dreaming of what could have been instead of what can be.
An unfortunate reality is that, although your passion can be found within the confines of your choices, the freedom to develop your passion is only granted if you can provide high-quality work in a timely manner. An attorney with no savings is not going to be able to instantly start teaching "law-practice management seminars" for money. He will most likely need to dominate the job he is currently in and develop the skills and connections he needs along the way. This can be negatively referred to as "paying your dues." I like to think of it as "making yourself valuable."
My suggestion, then, is to convince yourself that completing any mundane, dues-paying, rat-race work is actually an essential step to developing your passion. In order to find your passion, run straight through your challenges, instead of looking for a way around them. You will feel proud and accomplished, and your happiness will make you even more effective.
Become an expert in your field, and then carve out your passion.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Teacher Pay
Hey you! Yeah you, the wonderful teacher. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I'm troubled. Teacher pay in the U.S. makes no sense to me.
You are a great teacher, and I'm not criticizing you. I completely accept the possibility that thousands of teachers provide excellent instruction every day. The time you spend trying to effectively teach children is incredibly valuable to society.
I'm troubled because you work at a public school for the same amount of money as Mr. Crappy down the hall. I'm troubled because you are a better teacher than Mr. Masters, but he gets paid more for getting a wasteful graduate degree in an unrelated field. I'm troubled because someone as talented as you doesn't have the means, ability, or courage to go down a different road. I think teacher pay oppresses you.
As I've said before, the market for teachers suggests there are more teachers available than there are teaching positions. This is part of the reason why wages have stayed low. This increased supply of teachers in relation to demand pulls wages down while the unions and social morals pull wages up. The result, is juuuuust enough money to keep you there and keep your mouth shut. Public schools are like a smoked beehive. The bees are angry on the inside, but too paralyzed to really do anything about it.
As an illustration of my point, lets examine the extremes.
First, lets make our hypothetical world. We announce new federal legislation that will go into effect in four years. This legislation will mandate that all teachers be fired, that they be eligible for rehire, and that the minimum wage for public school teachers be raised to $120,000.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the demand for education-education would explode. Professionals would go back to school for a career switch, students would choose teaching programs over law school, med school, and pharmacy school. To counter the massive demand for education and the massive supply of new applicants, entrance exams would be created and schools would begin to require graduate degrees. Suddenly you'd have to take the GRE or T-SAT to get an education degree. Perhaps there would even be an educator's bar that would require a teacher bar exam of sorts.
Four years would pass and suddenly schools would have a huge variety of people to choose from. Unfortunately, the methods used to evaluate teachers suck now, so they wouldn't properly value or measure your years of experience and dedication. Most likely, they would choose the shiny ivy-league grads who tested in the top 10 percentile on the T-SAT. Your school board and superintendent would want to rehire you, but he'd have to justify the decision to parents and the community.
Let's say you get rehired. Phew! The industry would be hyper-competitive. Tenure would die because the public would be outraged if you couldn't be fired when you are making that type of money. The teachers who could handle larger class sizes would get preferential treatment and teachers would put in more and more time to preserve their job. The teacher evaluation techniques would still be ineffective, and you'd have to impress your managers in the same way everyone else in the world does. Work more than everyone else and become invaluable. Bring in private donations to your school, and keep the parents happy. Publish articles and get famous. All that jazz.
So, you tell me, would that make education better? Would test scores go up? Would "real" learning increase? My guess is that currently under-achieving schools would benefit greatly from the program while those schools that currently perform well would see marginal gains. Maybe I'm wrong and new teachers wouldn't fix the broken system.
Now for the opposite extreme. Sorry folks, we are still going to require the same standards and pre-requisites, but we have to cut your pay. You will make $18,000 per year plus $750 per year of experience.
I'm not totally convinced, but I can imagine demand for education-education would slow down substantially. However, the current teachers would probably revolt. Maybe the unions would do what they do and get the teachers to strike. Everyone would chant and holler and stare at each other for a while. Strikes make a difference, but I don't think it's that substantial. OR Maybe, just maybe, some teachers would get motivated and set up a lobby for vouchers or start fund raising for scholarships. A group of great teachers like you would break off and start competing with the public schools and you would own them. Maybe parents would realize that your school performs better than the public school and they'd start to lobby for more schools like yours. Maybe the wait list for your school would get so long that copy cats would pop up all over.
Maybe. I don't know. But you do, don't you? You can beat them, can't you?
The median state in the union spends about $11,000 per pupil each year. If you and four friends figure out how to educate 150 students, your school would have a gross revenue of $1.65 million dollars. Pay some MBA you trust $150,000 to run the place, spend $950,000 a year on expenses and you'd still have over $100,000 each for your salary.
I know this is oversimplified. But have you at least crunched the numbers? Could you sell a school to parents without a football field or bus system? Could you use a caterer for school lunches? Or are you paralyzed by union and bureaucratic smoke?
With all of the complaining I hear about teacher wages and treatment, I can't believe there isn't one private school business plan for every two teachers out there. Why don't you help get someone elected who can clear the way for private schools and vouchers?
Maybe it's because you are content with the wages you get.
How can I possibly draw any other conclusion? You go to school knowing what you'll get paid when you graduate, you know that you won't get merit pay, and you know that it will be a largely thankless job, yet you do it anyway. An on top of it, your lobby opposes private schools. You pay dues to a union, and it strikes down any competition that could provide better employment.
I honestly think the education lobbies want your pay to stay low, but not that low. If it gets too high, they know the pressure for merit pay and higher qualifications will be intense. If it gets too low, both the quality and willingness to play the game will drop.
I'm troubled. I don't get why so many people do what you with the wage ceiling where it is. At least underpaid professionals in other industries can dream of making it big one day. I'm troubled that you don't seem to be doing anything to change the system. You are seriously leaving education reform to the lawyers... and that's suspect.
You are a great teacher, and I'm not criticizing you. I completely accept the possibility that thousands of teachers provide excellent instruction every day. The time you spend trying to effectively teach children is incredibly valuable to society.
I'm troubled because you work at a public school for the same amount of money as Mr. Crappy down the hall. I'm troubled because you are a better teacher than Mr. Masters, but he gets paid more for getting a wasteful graduate degree in an unrelated field. I'm troubled because someone as talented as you doesn't have the means, ability, or courage to go down a different road. I think teacher pay oppresses you.
As I've said before, the market for teachers suggests there are more teachers available than there are teaching positions. This is part of the reason why wages have stayed low. This increased supply of teachers in relation to demand pulls wages down while the unions and social morals pull wages up. The result, is juuuuust enough money to keep you there and keep your mouth shut. Public schools are like a smoked beehive. The bees are angry on the inside, but too paralyzed to really do anything about it.
As an illustration of my point, lets examine the extremes.
First, lets make our hypothetical world. We announce new federal legislation that will go into effect in four years. This legislation will mandate that all teachers be fired, that they be eligible for rehire, and that the minimum wage for public school teachers be raised to $120,000.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the demand for education-education would explode. Professionals would go back to school for a career switch, students would choose teaching programs over law school, med school, and pharmacy school. To counter the massive demand for education and the massive supply of new applicants, entrance exams would be created and schools would begin to require graduate degrees. Suddenly you'd have to take the GRE or T-SAT to get an education degree. Perhaps there would even be an educator's bar that would require a teacher bar exam of sorts.
Four years would pass and suddenly schools would have a huge variety of people to choose from. Unfortunately, the methods used to evaluate teachers suck now, so they wouldn't properly value or measure your years of experience and dedication. Most likely, they would choose the shiny ivy-league grads who tested in the top 10 percentile on the T-SAT. Your school board and superintendent would want to rehire you, but he'd have to justify the decision to parents and the community.
Let's say you get rehired. Phew! The industry would be hyper-competitive. Tenure would die because the public would be outraged if you couldn't be fired when you are making that type of money. The teachers who could handle larger class sizes would get preferential treatment and teachers would put in more and more time to preserve their job. The teacher evaluation techniques would still be ineffective, and you'd have to impress your managers in the same way everyone else in the world does. Work more than everyone else and become invaluable. Bring in private donations to your school, and keep the parents happy. Publish articles and get famous. All that jazz.
So, you tell me, would that make education better? Would test scores go up? Would "real" learning increase? My guess is that currently under-achieving schools would benefit greatly from the program while those schools that currently perform well would see marginal gains. Maybe I'm wrong and new teachers wouldn't fix the broken system.
Now for the opposite extreme. Sorry folks, we are still going to require the same standards and pre-requisites, but we have to cut your pay. You will make $18,000 per year plus $750 per year of experience.
I'm not totally convinced, but I can imagine demand for education-education would slow down substantially. However, the current teachers would probably revolt. Maybe the unions would do what they do and get the teachers to strike. Everyone would chant and holler and stare at each other for a while. Strikes make a difference, but I don't think it's that substantial. OR Maybe, just maybe, some teachers would get motivated and set up a lobby for vouchers or start fund raising for scholarships. A group of great teachers like you would break off and start competing with the public schools and you would own them. Maybe parents would realize that your school performs better than the public school and they'd start to lobby for more schools like yours. Maybe the wait list for your school would get so long that copy cats would pop up all over.
Maybe. I don't know. But you do, don't you? You can beat them, can't you?
The median state in the union spends about $11,000 per pupil each year. If you and four friends figure out how to educate 150 students, your school would have a gross revenue of $1.65 million dollars. Pay some MBA you trust $150,000 to run the place, spend $950,000 a year on expenses and you'd still have over $100,000 each for your salary.
I know this is oversimplified. But have you at least crunched the numbers? Could you sell a school to parents without a football field or bus system? Could you use a caterer for school lunches? Or are you paralyzed by union and bureaucratic smoke?
With all of the complaining I hear about teacher wages and treatment, I can't believe there isn't one private school business plan for every two teachers out there. Why don't you help get someone elected who can clear the way for private schools and vouchers?
Maybe it's because you are content with the wages you get.
How can I possibly draw any other conclusion? You go to school knowing what you'll get paid when you graduate, you know that you won't get merit pay, and you know that it will be a largely thankless job, yet you do it anyway. An on top of it, your lobby opposes private schools. You pay dues to a union, and it strikes down any competition that could provide better employment.
I honestly think the education lobbies want your pay to stay low, but not that low. If it gets too high, they know the pressure for merit pay and higher qualifications will be intense. If it gets too low, both the quality and willingness to play the game will drop.
I'm troubled. I don't get why so many people do what you with the wage ceiling where it is. At least underpaid professionals in other industries can dream of making it big one day. I'm troubled that you don't seem to be doing anything to change the system. You are seriously leaving education reform to the lawyers... and that's suspect.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Price Point: Raise student loan interest rates.
Summary: The easy access to cheap federal financing has created a tuition bubble. The cost of tuition is not tied to it's true value or the real costs of educating students, but to the massive demand for education which has been inflated by federal programs.
I've railed several times against the cost of education, especially graduate education. I'm convinced that tuition and state funding are tied to manipulated supply and demand curves rather than the actual cost of service. Unfortunately, since schools are mini government bureaucracies, the expenses tend to rise to or above the revenue.
There has been a recent hub-bub about subsidized student loan rates going up (the reductions are expiring). Allowing these rates to return to 6.4% is seen as an assault on students and the poor/middle class families many of them come from. I recognize that the immediate effects of a rate hike can be nasty, especially on those students who pay their interest payments during school. However, I would like to focus on students entering school in 2014.
Let's assume that President Obama or Romney decide to extend these lower rates into 2016. Also assume that President Obama takes other measures to ensure access to government loans and more affordable education through grants and other financial instruments.
The direct effect of rate reductions is to make leveraging your future wages more affordable. The interest costs of $50,000 in student loans are $266.67 per month at 6.4% and $141.67 per month at 3.4%. That $125 a month in savings would pay your electric bill or your car insurance.
The indirect of rate reductions, however, is to increase the demand for education at expensive institutions. (The rate changes won't affect demand at cheap colleges as much because the savings will not be as significant). Furthermore, the effect of easy access to financing in addition to a rate reduction is to explode the demand for education.
For example, there is no way I could have personally financed my legal education, and private loans seemed insane to me. The easy access to federal loans and great consolidation programs provided just enough security for me to invest so heavily in education. I added up all the loans I would need and figured out what the payments would be in the future. Then I decided whether my probable income as a lawyer would be sufficient to cover the lifestyle I wanted, retirement (ha!) and the loan payments. Because of the semi-affordable (yet soul crushing) interest rates, I decided that it was a worthwhile investment.
But what if the rates were high, or if the schools required a massive down payment? Or what if every student loan required four co-signers? Demand for education would drop. Universities would be left with a few options: 1) Raise tuition on those who can pay (not likely to work for lower ranked universities); 2) cut costs and drop tuition; 3) Beg the state for more money; or 4) cut costs, keep tuition the same, and have less students.
If option 1 happened, you'd inevitably see more low-end competitors dropping prices. Better students would opt for lower ranked institutions, and more employers would hire from lower ranked institutions, and those institutions would suddenly rise in the rankings. Alternatively, employers would be forced to hire workers who were not as educated or finance the education of their employees. Professional and technical schools would quickly begin to take a greater share of the market. Additionally, you'd see degrees that do not generate significant income either vanish or become much cheaper. (Why in the world does an english degree cost the same amount as a organic chemistry or computer science degree?) Liberal arts education might suffer, but much of this education could now be done online.
If option 2 happened, then the more expensive financing options would be offset by lower tuition costs. Anyone who has ever gone to a major university knows that money is wasted like crazy. Tuition, donations, and state funding are all hogged up with ravenous hunger, and trust funds continue to grow regardless of waste and luxury. If the numerous "non-profit" schools could somehow tie tuition to actual cost of education, you'd see the market work much more effectively.
Option 3 is a no-go at this point, but some states might do it. I think it would be insane.
Option 4 would probably be fine as well. Education is wonderful, but it's not as restricted as it used to be. You can access free Harvard and MIT lectures on a number of websites. Obviously the information is valuable, but institutions charge for the degree, not the information. A fancy school degree is great primarily because employers hire students with fancy degrees. The quality of education at cheaper institutions is often very high (depending on the quality of the student). If a prospective employer wanted you to take 6 credits of math, science, and foreign language, they could require all applicants to possess it. If society benefited greatly from a well-rounded education, then charities, states, and donors could supplement the "less practical" fields.
So while I understand that there are drawbacks to options 1-4, I think they are necessary to make the cost of formal education more closely resemble it's true value. You'll hear thousands of people whining about student loan interest rates and an "unfair deal", but I doubt they've really thought through the ramifications of federal interference in the education market.
Consider an additional example in the legal field. There are several Tier 4 law schools (presumed to be ranked below 130 in the nation) with tuition levels every bit as high as the top 14 law schools. There is a high demand for these low end schools because there are plenty of students with average LSAT scores and GPAs who cannot gain admission to Harvard or Yale. In most areas, the lower quality products are cheaper because everyone has access to the higher quality stuff and the price point determines whether they will buy a particular good. (Demand on goods is rarely lower than supply, but there are exceptions like nintendo wiis and iphones.)
Harvard and Yale's high rankings are primarily due to prestige, which attracts the best teachers and students. (I'll write about how rankings are driven by student quality (aka employer demand) later). As a result of the high student quality and high ranking, most ivy educated law students get good jobs, and the investment pays off. However, a high percentage of tier 4 law students end up wasting a ton of time and money because there are more students than jobs.
So why do so many people risk so much to go to crappy schools and face a 50/50 shot of never being a lawyer? Human Nature. Humans are far more eager to risk future gains than sacrifice current money. If you required a $50,000 down payment in cash to go to a T4 school, almost nobody would go. But when you spread out the 100,000-150,000 in loans over 25 years, many students figure they are the exception, and the "investment" is worth the risk.
Now read through that again and see if you agree with me on how ludicrous it is. In what industry can you obtain the same level of financing regardless of product quality or reasonable rate of return? If you can prove you can pay the payment, you can probably get 500k in financing for a 550k home. But you can't get 500k in financing for a 250k home. The truth is, most private lenders would never invest money in a tier 4 law student unless they could come up with a true business plan for how they were going to make money. Only the government would apply funds so recklessly... they can get current voters by offering great "education" reforms, and then they'll be long out of office before the taxpayers get nailed with the billions (or trillions) in defaulted loans.
Reducing the rates is a grant... and the grant is applied evenly regardless of merit. Why subsidize all programs the same? And why subsidize all students the same? If you want to give a grant because a student is poor, then do that. If you want to give a grant because the student is exceptional, then do that. But don't pretend that lower student loan rates are good for anyone in this insane economy.
I've railed several times against the cost of education, especially graduate education. I'm convinced that tuition and state funding are tied to manipulated supply and demand curves rather than the actual cost of service. Unfortunately, since schools are mini government bureaucracies, the expenses tend to rise to or above the revenue.
There has been a recent hub-bub about subsidized student loan rates going up (the reductions are expiring). Allowing these rates to return to 6.4% is seen as an assault on students and the poor/middle class families many of them come from. I recognize that the immediate effects of a rate hike can be nasty, especially on those students who pay their interest payments during school. However, I would like to focus on students entering school in 2014.
Let's assume that President Obama or Romney decide to extend these lower rates into 2016. Also assume that President Obama takes other measures to ensure access to government loans and more affordable education through grants and other financial instruments.
The direct effect of rate reductions is to make leveraging your future wages more affordable. The interest costs of $50,000 in student loans are $266.67 per month at 6.4% and $141.67 per month at 3.4%. That $125 a month in savings would pay your electric bill or your car insurance.
The indirect of rate reductions, however, is to increase the demand for education at expensive institutions. (The rate changes won't affect demand at cheap colleges as much because the savings will not be as significant). Furthermore, the effect of easy access to financing in addition to a rate reduction is to explode the demand for education.
For example, there is no way I could have personally financed my legal education, and private loans seemed insane to me. The easy access to federal loans and great consolidation programs provided just enough security for me to invest so heavily in education. I added up all the loans I would need and figured out what the payments would be in the future. Then I decided whether my probable income as a lawyer would be sufficient to cover the lifestyle I wanted, retirement (ha!) and the loan payments. Because of the semi-affordable (yet soul crushing) interest rates, I decided that it was a worthwhile investment.
But what if the rates were high, or if the schools required a massive down payment? Or what if every student loan required four co-signers? Demand for education would drop. Universities would be left with a few options: 1) Raise tuition on those who can pay (not likely to work for lower ranked universities); 2) cut costs and drop tuition; 3) Beg the state for more money; or 4) cut costs, keep tuition the same, and have less students.
If option 1 happened, you'd inevitably see more low-end competitors dropping prices. Better students would opt for lower ranked institutions, and more employers would hire from lower ranked institutions, and those institutions would suddenly rise in the rankings. Alternatively, employers would be forced to hire workers who were not as educated or finance the education of their employees. Professional and technical schools would quickly begin to take a greater share of the market. Additionally, you'd see degrees that do not generate significant income either vanish or become much cheaper. (Why in the world does an english degree cost the same amount as a organic chemistry or computer science degree?) Liberal arts education might suffer, but much of this education could now be done online.
If option 2 happened, then the more expensive financing options would be offset by lower tuition costs. Anyone who has ever gone to a major university knows that money is wasted like crazy. Tuition, donations, and state funding are all hogged up with ravenous hunger, and trust funds continue to grow regardless of waste and luxury. If the numerous "non-profit" schools could somehow tie tuition to actual cost of education, you'd see the market work much more effectively.
Option 3 is a no-go at this point, but some states might do it. I think it would be insane.
Option 4 would probably be fine as well. Education is wonderful, but it's not as restricted as it used to be. You can access free Harvard and MIT lectures on a number of websites. Obviously the information is valuable, but institutions charge for the degree, not the information. A fancy school degree is great primarily because employers hire students with fancy degrees. The quality of education at cheaper institutions is often very high (depending on the quality of the student). If a prospective employer wanted you to take 6 credits of math, science, and foreign language, they could require all applicants to possess it. If society benefited greatly from a well-rounded education, then charities, states, and donors could supplement the "less practical" fields.
So while I understand that there are drawbacks to options 1-4, I think they are necessary to make the cost of formal education more closely resemble it's true value. You'll hear thousands of people whining about student loan interest rates and an "unfair deal", but I doubt they've really thought through the ramifications of federal interference in the education market.
Consider an additional example in the legal field. There are several Tier 4 law schools (presumed to be ranked below 130 in the nation) with tuition levels every bit as high as the top 14 law schools. There is a high demand for these low end schools because there are plenty of students with average LSAT scores and GPAs who cannot gain admission to Harvard or Yale. In most areas, the lower quality products are cheaper because everyone has access to the higher quality stuff and the price point determines whether they will buy a particular good. (Demand on goods is rarely lower than supply, but there are exceptions like nintendo wiis and iphones.)
Harvard and Yale's high rankings are primarily due to prestige, which attracts the best teachers and students. (I'll write about how rankings are driven by student quality (aka employer demand) later). As a result of the high student quality and high ranking, most ivy educated law students get good jobs, and the investment pays off. However, a high percentage of tier 4 law students end up wasting a ton of time and money because there are more students than jobs.
So why do so many people risk so much to go to crappy schools and face a 50/50 shot of never being a lawyer? Human Nature. Humans are far more eager to risk future gains than sacrifice current money. If you required a $50,000 down payment in cash to go to a T4 school, almost nobody would go. But when you spread out the 100,000-150,000 in loans over 25 years, many students figure they are the exception, and the "investment" is worth the risk.
Now read through that again and see if you agree with me on how ludicrous it is. In what industry can you obtain the same level of financing regardless of product quality or reasonable rate of return? If you can prove you can pay the payment, you can probably get 500k in financing for a 550k home. But you can't get 500k in financing for a 250k home. The truth is, most private lenders would never invest money in a tier 4 law student unless they could come up with a true business plan for how they were going to make money. Only the government would apply funds so recklessly... they can get current voters by offering great "education" reforms, and then they'll be long out of office before the taxpayers get nailed with the billions (or trillions) in defaulted loans.
Reducing the rates is a grant... and the grant is applied evenly regardless of merit. Why subsidize all programs the same? And why subsidize all students the same? If you want to give a grant because a student is poor, then do that. If you want to give a grant because the student is exceptional, then do that. But don't pretend that lower student loan rates are good for anyone in this insane economy.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Romneycare vs. Obama Care (Short)
I'd love to spend all day writing about this topic, but I can't. I do want to say that those arguing that what Mitt Romney did is the same as what Pelosi and President Obama did are crazy.
Two main principles:
Limited Powers and the Tenth Amendment
Police Power
The founders knew that they would never get a constitution on the books unless they made concessions with the states. The end solution was for a powerful, but very limited federal government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There are many reasons why the 10th amendment was a good idea. Among them are First, it's the reason the country survived; second, the states became laboratories for experimentation; third, freedom increased wildly because people could move to other states freely if they were looking for different laws or environments.
There are many cases which have expanded (or just interpreted) federal congressional power. The necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause are two of the main provisions that congress uses to justify it's actions. "Obamacare," at a minimum, stretches the commerce power. Many argue that the Raich court case provides a precedent to uphold the individual mandate. I think Raich was wrong, and I think this case is distinct from Raich.
By contrast, Massachussets has broader powers including a police power. Romneycare could possibly be unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution, and it could be argued that it violates the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to the federal bill of rights. However, Romneycare is not analyzed under the federal commerce power. The analysis would be wildly different. Furthermore, anyone who wishes not to be involved in Romneycare can move to another state, which is much easier that moving to another country.
I am moderately federalist, (meaning, I believe most decisions should be made at the lowest (local) political level possible. I want states to have more freedom because I want to have options in the future. I hope that some states can remain as havens for freedom. I hope those states offer few entitlements and require great personal responsibility. And I hope those states can prove that through freedom and responsibility, citizens may gain prosperity. Unfortunately, federal involvement in almost anything is making it nearly impossible for any states to engage in the psuedo-libertarian model.
I support what Governor Romney did even though I don't completely agree with the bill, but that doesn't mean that he would do, or be allowed to do, the same thing at the federal level.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Individual Health Insurance Mandate
My two-year-old post on the individual health insurance mandate.
If the average patient does not know or care about the cost of her healthcare, it will never be "affordable."
But before we get to that, I need to address the core issue:
Is health care a fundamental right? I believe it is to a certain extent. We can debate that all you want, but it won't be that effective. Instead, let's talk about fundamental rights for a moment.
The Right to Privacy from unreasonable searches and seizures
You have a fundamental right to privacy under the bill of rights. Privacy from your neighbors?? Nope. Sure, you can sue someone for trespassing (probably not going to get much money) and a person can be arrested for trespassing (if a state has that law).
Your neighbor simply cannot violate your constitutional right to privacy, because the Fourth Amendment applies to intrusions from the government. The government can't search your stuff or take control of your stuff unless certain conditions are met (Ask me about this if you really want to know all the criteria).
Does the government mess with your stuff and violate the 4th Amendment sometimes? Yeah, it happens all the time. "The Constitution says they can't do that! Why didn't the cops stop them from doing that?"Because the government doesn't have to stand outside your house and make sure cops don't bust in without a warrant.
You don't have a fundamental right to a security system that will help protect your 4th amendment rights. You have the right to sue the government if they violate your rights. Additionally, the Government probably can't use the evidence they find against you if they Violated your rights.
Nobody has the job to stop the government from violating your rights, you just get a chance to use the judicial sledgehammer and smash them. Hopefully the fear of punishment will stop them from doing the same thing in the future, but there is no preemptive strike provision in the bill of rights. The government doesn't have to build a wall around your house, they don't have to give you locks for your luggage, and they don't have to make sure you have a private place.
Health Care compared to Privacy
The health care debate is very similar. The Constitution simply cannot be interpreted to guarantee that the government will proactively provide healthcare. Also, the Constitution can't possibly be interpreted to mean that the government is responsible to make sure the quality of health care is acceptable. Maybe people should be able to sue if they are not allowed to offer emergency or clinical services, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have to pay for it later.
So then any "fundamental right" to health care must be some sort of moral human right. Some Governments have the authority to codify human rights. The U.S. Congress specifically has authority to regulate interstate commerce, and that's a big ol' umbrella that covers almost everything. (This is another complicated legal subject that requires more explanation that I don't have time for here) So this issue is a bit tricky, but lets just assume that congress has the authority under the Constitution to fine people if they don't get insurance.
Heck, let's assume congress could just create a new health care amendment like:
"No Citizen of the United States shall be denied access to care in hospitals operated by the several states"
Such an Amendment would suggest that there is some type of fundamental right to health care, or at least access to health care. I don't see how an Amendment could do much more than this.
What are you going to say? "Everyone shall get free healthcare." Well it simply can't be free. Someone has to pay for it. So basically that's the same as saying "All people who don't pay taxes shall get free health care"
Or maybe you could say "The government shall establish hospitals funded by the treasury"
Well how many hospitals? Does each city and small town need one? How far should someone have to drive for health care? "I have a fundamental right to health care within a 20 minute drive!!!"
What if the government set up a big-A hospital in washington DC, and everyone could just go there for free. Wouldn't that give everyone in the country access to health care? "But John, that hospital would be overrun. That just doesn't make sense."
So what would you have the constitution say? "The Government Shall Establish Hospitals which are solely funded by the treasury, and such hospitals shall be established within 37 'as the tire rolls' miles from every city, town, or association with a population of more than 632 citizens."
Can you see what I'm getting at here? No matter what you do, someone would be screwed. So you can't really guarantee that everyone has equal access to health care. What standard of quality would you use? Would the government have to make sure that doctors passed a federal certification to be qualified under the constitution? It would be nearly impossible to regulate.
So what does that mean.
This leads us back to where we are today. Congress realizes they can't actually guarantee any standard of quality, so they are pretty much just saying that everyone gets reimbursed for whatever health care they can find. So either the government will provide insurance, or they will just require everyone to have insurance. Sure, there will be some level of quality required before a clinic or hospital can be eligible for reimbursement. But what if a little doctor's office doesn't want to take the government insurance? (A lot of Doctor's won't take Medicaid/care)
Doesn't that mean the rich would have access to health care that the poor don't get?
Under the bill, the government will fine an individual for refusing to get eligible insurance. Even if you've self insured over the last 20 years, and you've got a "health fund" set up. Can the government fine a business for not accepting insurance? That's kind of like the government fining a private business for not taking food stamps. It's probably in their best interest because they get reimbursed for the food, but it should be up to the company.
The Power of the Consumer
Do you want the best health care in the world for free, with no lines, and close to your house?
That's impossible. Can we at least accept that?
I almost never had to pay health care bills when I had insurance at my old job. Seriously, when I wrecked my motorcycle at 75 mph, I saw amazing doctors and went to great facilities. The care was immediate and effective. (Even before they knew I had insurance)
Do you think everyone should have access to the same insurance? I don't. Why? Because that insurance sucks.
I paid about 200 bucks a month for my health coverage. The coverage was awesome; it had a super low deductible, low out-of-pocket, and great access to doctors. So I thought that was a pretty good deal. Except my company was spending $600 a month on my plan as well. $800 dollars a month? Yeah, that's $9,600 dollars that I didn't get paid, because the company was giving me the "benefit" of coverage. Don't get me wrong: I'm extremely grateful that I had insurance when I got hurt. But that accident was hopefully just a freak occurrence. And that's what I believe insurance is for.
Health Savings Plans
You just say those three words and some people stop listening. "That just won't work for the general population."
I simply don't understand why not. Maybe you can educate me.
Let's crunch the numbers.
A "deductible" in insurance is a dollar amount that you have to pay toward your healthcare every year before the insurance company starts paying. My old insurance had a deductible of $250. (That's amazing) So I had to pay the first $250, and then the insurance company paid 85% of everything after that.
A $10,000 Deductible health plan costs almost nothing. If you spread that out over a medium company, say 100 employees, the average monthly premium would be something like $65 bucks a month. Why so cheap? Because the insurance company doesn't have to pay for the first 10,000 bucks. That means most traditional procedures, pregnancies, prescriptions, and general emergency room visits wouldn't be covered by the insurance company.
Well who has 10 grand sitting around to cover that? Almost nobody.
Well my insurance cost me and the company $9,600 a year.
The new insurance would cost me and the company $780 a year. Which would leave $8,820 in savings.
What would the company do with that 8800? If I were running it you would have two options.
Option 1: A debit card loaded with $5,000 that can only be used for medical purposes, and a $3,800 raise.
Option 2: A debit card loaded with $8,800 dollars that can only be used for medical purposes.
So you would have the responsibility of covering the first $10,000 of your medical expenseseach year, but 8,800 would be covered. So if you did have a disaster, then you'd have to come up with $1,200 bucks, and that shouldn't bankrupt you (especially since you could spread it out over 24 months or whatever).
If you wanted to gamble a bit, you could choose option one. Then you might have to come up with 5,000 bucks for a disaster, but you'd have more money coming into your paycheck, and hopefully you could invest in your own health fund. Maybe you'd even be able to make some money with it.
Oh, and one more thing. THE MONEY WOULD ROLL OVER.
Under option 2, if you are healthy for 10 years, you'd have 86,000 buckaroos in your health savings account, and you'd still have insurance. In my company, as soon as you built up an amount twice the size of your deductible (or $20,000) then the rest of the contributions would go into your retirement account.
And this wouldn't cost me any more that the expensive insurance you were already getting.
The opposing argument would suggest that this strategy wouldn't work for the whole population. Some employers don't provide benefits at all, and the drop in contributions to health insurance would make insurance rates go up for everyone.
First, everyone can afford disaster insurance or get on medicaid. You can find a way.
Second, nobody can predict the exact effect on premiums, but you can bet your bottom dollar that health care costs would go down.
why? Because in the current system you don't know how much stuff costs.
The food insurance metaphor is a bit silly. "What if you had food insurance. Someone else is paying, so you'd just buy steak every time you went to the grocery store!"
Well take that and add on the fact that you have no idea how much you'll be charged until AFTER you get the care. Some people do know the price, some of the time. But most people go to the same doctor for everything. That's insane. I don't even buy all of my dairy products at the same store.
If you had a health savings account that would eventually turn into your retirement, you'd start shopping around.
Need to get a funny spot on your neck checked out? Don't just run to your regular dermatologist, call around to every dermatologist in town.
Doctors would start to run specials, they would start to compete. If quality went down, the business would disappear.
You'd find prices listed on the wall in Doctor's offices. "Strep throat test: $42.50"
"Oh, well I can go to the walgreens clinic and get that procedure for $29, bye"
"MRI that you probably only have a 1.7% chance of actually needing: $1,700"
"Need surgery, choose an anesthesiologist:
A: 2 years of experience, Utah Medical School: $1,200
B: 29 years of experience, John's Hopkins: $4,400"
Prices would start to go down because:
1: Doctor's couldn't get away with as much
2: Unnecessary procedures would be eliminated
3: Doctor's would get paid in cash and collection costs would go down, so they would have an incentive to market to these people.
4: People would be encouraged to live healthier lives in order to save money.
A big argument against me is that people would get scammed, some people would choose not to have procedures they ended up needing, and lives would inevitably be lost.
First: Is that worse than the current system? Not really.
Second: That argument works on two faulty assumptions (1) that people can't take care of themselves and (2) that people who make bad decisions shouldn't be responsible for the consequences.
I just don't think it would be that much of a problem. You'd be able to get more informed and get more involved in the process, and you'd still be able to sue people who scam you or who harm you out of negligence.
Could someone tell me where I'm wrong?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Should bank tellers be rich? How everyone misunderstands potential.
The going rate for a new bank teller is in the range of $9.00-$11.00 per hour. That's ridiculous. Bank teller's should make $20 per hour. This article is about poor management (which is interesting) even though it seems like an article about bank tellers (who are boring).
I returned home from a two-year church mission in the spring of 2003 at the age of 21. I was ambitious, big-picture wise, but I wasn't in a hurry to do anything. My parents prodded me to get a job, so I attended an interview at a local credit union (My father set the interview up). I had no resume, and no relevant skills, but my father is kind of a genius, so the bank manager thought I might have good genes. After several interviews, the manager decided that none of the candidates were good, so she went with the best of the terrible options: me. Her decision to hire me as a teller, and my decision to take the job impacted my life in significant ways. Were it not for that first teller job, I would be in a completely different career and probably in a different state right now.
Throughout my five-year mini-career in consumer banking, I was employed in seven different positions. Although these positions were in the same industry, the skill-sets each required were all over the map. I quickly picked up on tellering and became an excellent cash handler and customer service agent (in my own mind, at least). Six months in, I was pushing hard for a promotion and a raise from my meager $7.25 per hour. The powers that be recognized that I was a talented teller, so they made accommodations to give me a part-time consumer loan officer job to mesh with my busy school schedule.
I was an A or A+ teller, and I was a B or B- auto loan officer. I quickly learned the loan policies and procedures, but there were a few areas of the job that I was not cut out for. Nevertheless, my good performance earned me another promotion and I moved on. My third position was challenging and rewarding and I excelled again, back up to the A- range. My pay increased along with my responsibility. At that point I managed to impress a manager at another bank and he offered me a job so I went. The new position required a completely different skill set and was insanely boring. My performance dropped down to a C+. Luckily, my old boss at the credit union hired me back as assistant manager where I managed to do a fine job, possibly a B rating. I was eventually promoted to a seventh position and the company had high hopes. They still viewed me as that A+ teller, and they expected nothing less. Unfortunately, I struggled until I left for law school. I hate to say it, but I was probably a C- or D+ quality in that last position.
At some point, my company paid good money to have me tested. The test consisted of personality profiling and IQ testing. The results showed that I was a 90% match for one particular position with a lot of responsibility, and I was an 88% match for a job as a teller. The testing computer felt that I would not be a good fit for many other positions. Not surprisingly, the company didn't listen to the results. They evaluated me as a $20+ per hour employee, and a teller was a "less-than-$10" type of job, so they stuck me in an available job that I wasn't cut out for, and I eventually quit.
I managed one teller who somehow got every male customer to fall in love with her. (There are at least four of my former co-workers that will think I'm talking about them) People would add accounts and services just so they could see her more often. Sometimes, business owners would wait in-line strategically to use her as their teller. These men never dated her (she was in a relationship) and she dressed modestly, but for some reason these men loved to interact with our star teller.
The company wanted to promote her to something else, but luckily her schedule wouldn't allow it. She would have been a terrible loan officer. Fortunately, she continued to excel as a teller, but eventually her schedule cleared up and she had to leave to do something else for more money. My manager desperately wanted her to stay, but the big-wigs would never pay $20/hr for a teller... ever... and no other positions were open. "Teller positions are not worth that much. The market doesn't pay tellers that much."
The first problem with this type of job evaluation is that managers and owners suck at evaluating jobs. The second problem is that most companies see front line employees and staff as a cost rather than an investment.
The market evaluates the worth of a teller position at a low wage because companies apparently don't see the value in a teller. "Wells Fargo doesn't pay more, so I won't!" I can tell you from first hand experience that managers often see tellers as a necessary evil. (They won't admit this though) The question then is what data or what criteria do managers use to determine that a loan officer or assistant manager position is any more important or profitable than a teller position? Our star teller made something like $9 per hour, but I guarantee she made or saved the credit union ten times that. We got new accounts and loans all the time because of her skill set (She was fast and accurate, in addition to her ability to charm).
Our Star was replaced by an atrocious teller that stuck around for quite a long time. She made something in the neighborhood of $10 bucks an hour and she probably lost us accounts every single day. She made mistakes, but they were never fireable offenses.
The difference in wages between what we wanted to pay Star, and what we paid her replacement was $20,000 per year. That's the kind of money that makes the big-wigs drool or cry. "What kind of idiot would pay a teller $20,000 more per year than he had to??" Unfortunately, management didn't realize that a substandard teller actually cut away from profits. She single handedly destroyed two large business accounts. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I'm sure that her terribleness easily cost the company over $20,000 per year. Star teller, on the other hand, would convince upset business owners to stay at the credit union, she'd bring in her friends, her friends friends, and her friend's fathers. Every time a customer came in to the branch, he was exposed to our brochures, our posters, and all of the advertising material we could throw at him. That teller projected an image onto customers which made them think that our entire credit union was as high-quality as she was. She independently increased the value of our entire brand because people saw her every day.
Most managers and big-wigs would promote a teller like Star. They wouldn't think about how the skill set required for a teller is drastically different than the skill set required for a loan processor or manager. They wouldn't consider that the value of an employee who enjoys her job is exponentially better than the value of an employee who hates her job. Unfortunately, most established bankers are too stubborn to even consider paying a teller enough to keep them around. As a reaction to this stubbornness, one company actually started to value applicants who were boring, ambitionless, and shy. The theory was that these people would stick around for a longer period of time, so the training costs per employee would go down.
On a side note (I wish I could use footnotes): Aside from stubbornness, many companies are afraid of risk. They feel, as explained above, that tellers or other front-liners are a necessary evil and they assume that a $20/hr employee is just as likely to fail as a $10/hr employee. This indicates that their interviewing and training methods are inadequate.
So what does it say about your company when your front line is just a fill-in employee. What does it say when the person who interacts with the most clients and customers is the least qualified employee in the entire company? What does it say when your company is unwilling to pay a front-line employee for dominating the position, but your company is willing to promote the employee they could be terrible at?
I believe my argument also holds up in different industries as well. Consider a receptionist at a law firm where the attorneys charge incredibly high rates or a billing clerk at a dental office where the dentist charges even higher rates. One client is probably worth between $5,000 and $10,000 to the company. If four clients quit coming back because they are put off by your front line, your company gets nailed for $20,000 to $40,000 per year. If your clients feel welcome, informed, and comfortable, they will refer their friends. I don't have time to do a study or full analysis, but I would be willing to bet that a front line employee is credited with 10-20% of a customer's feel for the company. That 20% could quickly turn off your customers.
My point in all this is that managers should evaluate employees in isolation. How much does X employee make or save my company? How much more will I have to pay X employee to stay? What negative impact would replacing X employee with Y employee have? If the negative impact of removing X is greater that the extra you will have to pay them, you've made a poor decision. I don't think this is that novel of an idea, but I'm convinced that most managers just look at what everyone else pays for that position, and refuse to pay much more. Preconceived notions that do not stand up to logic cause slowness, dullness, and stagnation. Hopefully future managers can avoid that trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)