SPARK Ann Arbor

As part of my AS-L fellowship at Eastern Michigan, I have to volunteer with an organization throughout the semester and keep a journal of my activities. I approached SPARK Ann Arbor, a non-profit organization whose mission is to start, grow, and retain businesses in the Ann Arbor/ Ypsilanti area. One of their most noted successes was helping Google open an office in downtown Ann Arbor. Google now has over 250 employees with plans for significant growth.

This post details my interaction with them.

Last week, I contacted Amy Cell, Talent Enhancement, at SPARK. Over the phone, I explained what I was doing and why I was interested in establishing a relationship with SPARK. First was for the immediate need of volunteering my services. Second, was to establish a relationship with them such that we might be able to match student groups performing real world class projects with businesses in need of information systems. She forwarded my information on to their team and set up a meeting with me to meet.

The next day I received a call from Scott Olson with regards to the first need. SPARK conducts an Entrepreneur Boot Camp for new businesses. In this boot camp, participant companies are partnered with industry mentors to help them with questions and advice they may have. This sounded like an exciting opportunity and agreed to be a mentor. It would be a great way for me to connect with businesses, build a reputation as an expert in the field, and establish a positive relationship with SPARK.

I met Amy face-to-face yesterday, along with Greg Fronizer, and we further discussed how I could build a relationship with SPARK. When I experienced interest in being an IT consultant, Amy’s eyes immediately lit up because that is one important role that SPARK provides to new businesses. She mentioned that my involvement with the entrepreneur boot camp is an excellent first step in building our relationship, especially if I want to be a consultant recommended by SPARK.

All-in-all, this looks like a great opportunity for me. I was a bit hesitant about the AS-L fellowship when I first applied, but it should work out tremendously for me in the long run.

China for a day

On Wednesday, I attended a speech by famed author and NYTimes columnist Thomas Friedman. His book The World is Flat sits on my desktop and I often use it in my classes because of the insightful ideas about how information systems have changed the global economy. Now he is on a speaking tour promoting his new book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, which is what brought him to Eastern Michigan University. While I believe a great deal of this book is missing the big picture, its his conclusion that I find terribly frightening.

From the first word in the title of his new book, it may be obvious he's talking about global warming. Friedman believes we are experiencing global warming and that it is man made. He even jokes that he told Al Gore that he should apologize because the results have been much worse than he predicted. Friedman argues that CO2 released from fossil fuels is causing this problem, so we need to find alternative energy. The second word "Flat" refers to the information revolution and resulting impact on globalization which has allowed a middle class throughout the world to grow astronomically over the past ten years. The implication, in energy terms, is that the middle class will require vastly more energy than fossil fuels can provide safely (in terms of global warming). That, along with his third term "Crowded", means that the total world population is expected to strain every last once of current energy production past its capacity.

These strains, he argues, is why energy technology will be the next great revolution in industry. His argument so far is interesting and has some plausibility, even though I believe he is wrong about global warming. He wants to see America lead this revolution. And to that I say, you betcha. I love to see America lead any technological revolution. But Friedman's argument about how we get there is downright scary.

He then argues that America has lost its edge after 9/11. Not economically, but politically. The security we demand at airports, at embassies and consulates, and at our borders, is shutting down our capacity to innovate. This argument is incredibly weak and is designed more as a shot at Republicans than anything else. He goes on to say we need government to lead the way in creating the energy revolution here in the U.S., rather than waiting for some other nation to lead the way. How can our government do this? By being "China for a day" (his words!). And he is explicit about what he means...our government should be as authoritarian as China is, but just for one day, just long enough to set the standards, finance the research, and discourage the use of fossil fuels that will lead to an energy revolution.

China for a day! In Friedman's mind, individual rights not only can be suspended for a day, they should be. He acknowledges that people will bitch and moan about this action. His response "so what?". Let them bitch and moan, because the world is at stake. Never mind that people are bitching and moaning because your killing them slowly but surely by taking away the legal protection needed to live. Never mind that the reason why the world is becoming "Flat" is because nations are recognizing and establishing legal protection for individual rights. That the very thing he wants to take away is the very thing that has allowed billions of people to move out of extreme poverty. China, India, and Eastern Europe are becoming wealthier because they are less authoritarian, not more. It is his blatent disregard for the individual that I find truly frightening. China for a day! How about the U.S. for a lifetime?

Unschooled

I've written about unschooling before here. Since a number of Objectivists are proponents of unschooling, I decided a second look at the movement would be beneficial. The following includes additional look at the unschooling movement and a couple of clarifications about my beliefs.

In the 1960s John Holt, a former teacher, wrote a couple books about the failing school systems. In these books, he identifies some real problems about many schools. He comes to one conclusion, that schools always fail because teaching is accomplished through external motivation rather than internal motivation.

Holt notes that many children fail at school because they in part because fear getting the wrong answer or become dependent on the praise of the teacher, focusing learning on what the teacher wants rather than on the nature of objective reality.

In the words of Holt:

Since we can’t know what knowledge will be most needed in the future, it is senseless to try to teach it in advance. Instead, we should try to turn out people who love learning so much and learn so well that they will be able to learn whatever needs to be learned.

If this is the basis of Unschooling, then I disagree. Not the love of learning part, but the part about knowing what knowledge will be most needed in the future. There most certainly are subjects that will necessarily be important for all individuals in the future, some to a greater extent than others. But all necessary. Reading, writing, math, history... all necessary subjects for any career. One could make the argument that 100 years ago, those subjects were not necessary for some careers such as farming or manual labor jobs. But with advancing technology requiring ever more sophisticated knowledge, developing basic knowledge is absolutely essential.

Unschooling acknowledges that goals must be chosen by individuals, including children. The purpose of knowledge is to facilitate the accomplishment of one's goals. Once properly motivated, either internally or externally, learning comes naturally and easily. The goal of an educator is to properly motivate children to want to learn a subject and then help guide them in that quest.
Unschooling fails to fully address why external motivation is inherently wrong in motivation. Holt focuses on rewards and punishments, but wrongly includes persuasive motivation as a bad type of external motivation.

Take for instance Michael Phelps (the American swimmer striving for a historic 8 Olympic gold medals while I write this). His mom first sent him to swim lessons as an outlet for his energy. Michael did not have internal motivation to take up swimming. His mom encouraged him, persuaded him, to try it out. Once his skills were identified by his swimming coach (when he was 11), he first approached Michael's mom about the possibility of becoming an Olympian. Once he convinced her, they persuaded Michael to do the same. Sure, it was easy to persuade an 11 year old to shot for the gold, its an easy dream to latch on to. But it was external to his motivations.

While I believe unschooling ultimately fails as the ideal educational method, I can understand its appeal to Objectivists. The appeal to personal goals driving education strikes at the individualist heart. However, to hope a child will blindly find their way through self-development, is, in my opinion, naive. After many years of schooling, I understand that learning a new subject on my own is highly inefficient. I could follow many blind alleys before I truly understood a subject. By using a structured educational program, I can rapidly learn subjects. Using persuasive motivation to convince our kids of this importance is entirely justified.