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?
Thursday, June 14, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)