What's Happened to our Educational System (cont'd)?: Quantitative vs Qualitative

      All parents want their children to attend “good” schools. “Good” or “bad” is an answer to a set of questions that we would like to have quantifiable. And that isn’t easy to do. In the first place, all schools do not teach the same things. Secondly, they may not all evaluate the students’ progress in the same manner or use the same scales. Lastly, there are many types of educational achievements and many of them do not have “scores” associated with them.

     So, it was “decided” (in a rather arbitrary manner), in the US, to make schools comparable. Require schools to teach the same materials, in the same ways, and evaluated in the same way. And just eliminate (from the scoring at least — possibly completely from the curriculum) all of those “messy” areas that are difficult to assign numerical evaluations to. “Messy” areas like art, music, physical education, creative writing, and such. In addition, there are many “messy” areas that CAN be evaluated to a score but, in order to do such, much time and effort is needed. Such areas include non-fiction essays, book reports, topical research papers, and such.

     The “No Child Left Behind” Act had admirable goals but, in order to achieve much of it, all schools needed to be comparable. Doing such required the above methods. Teachers had to start “teaching to the test”. Things that would be on the standardized national tests were important to know — everything else was not.

     “No Child Left Behind” still might have worked — but not in conjunction with reduced resources and exploding class sizes. (I think around 12 to 15 students per teacher would be optimum — but those numbers are certainly up for debate.) The quantifiable “teaching to the test” stuff could be a part of the day’s curriculum. But most of the time should be devoted to material that fosters the creative, analytical, and investigative sides of their education.

     The “whats” and “whens” have become even less important in these days of information access. It is those “hows” and “whys” (and whether it is true or not) that humans most need to be able to do.

     Back to reality, however. Class sizes are NOT reasonable. Teachers are not well rewarded or recognized. When classes overflow, “teaching to the test” is what survives. The teacher is considered “good” if their students get good test scores. The school is considered “good” based on their test scores. These numbers affect school funding and teacher retention. Great teachers can lose their jobs in a manner that is parallel to the situation of dedicated school cafeteria cooks being replaced by less healthy pre-processed foods.

     Great teachers teach for the benefit of the students and not for the benefit of a numerical score.

     Being able to check the correct box on tests becomes more important than being able to write — or to read beyond recognizing the questions and answers. The numbers become more important than being able to create the next important “widget” for a future business. The numbers become more important than being able to research, and verify, what is correct and what is a falsehood. The numbers win. Education loses. Society loses.

     I am trying to shift my newsletters over to the substack system. If you are interested in my thoughts, please sign up for a free (or paid) subscription.

Check substack and subscribe

Failure: How does it help to lead to success?

 

     There are a lot of memes about failure. I normally give them a like, occasionally an insightful. Most people would agree that failure is only a stumbling block towards the future. Yet, I have a well-worn NASA t-shirt reading "Failure is Not an Option". What gives? Isn't that contradictory?

     Failure is not an option. This doesn't mean that failure cannot happen. When you are putting together a list of scenarios, there are paths -- things that occur -- which deviate from success. What do you do when you reach a scenario of "failure", or non-success? You start initiating methods of surviving or restarting or recovering or overcoming the problem(s). In data tree terminology, failure is never an "end node". In non-computerese -- failure just means you try something different, you don't allow it to stop you.

     So, failure is not an end goal. How can "non-success" be of benefit? In any plan, or design, there are likely to be multiple places where things might not go as desired. People leave. Prototypes don't work. Money gets low or runs out. A hurricane hits the building. You have such a huge surge in customers it is not possible to keep up with deliveries -- damaging your reputation and allowing competition a window in which to gain ground. Many, many things can happen. No one can anticipate every possibility -- and too much preparation for unlikely possibilities can be counter-productive by using resources better used elsewhere.

     You are moving along on your plan. Something happens to cause you to have to try to find a solution quickly. You don't find the solution quickly enough -- you "fail". The next time you start proceeding on a plan, prior experience (which, hopefully, you have thought long and hard about) will help you to avoid, or ameliorate, the possibility of the same problem occurring. That doesn't mean that no other problem will occur but as you iterate you can become more adept at addressing problems quickly and have more experience that can be used -- either directly or indirectly.

     Someone who has the same problems occurring time and time again is not learning from it -- and should probably find a different line of work (this can also apply to social or personal situations). Someone who has not succeeded multiple times may, or may not, be someone on the edge of making it their goal-line the next time. Their precise situations should be carefully examined before committing yourself to their plan.

     A local university thinks that it is terrible, and will reject students, if it has taken them more than twice to pass a course. Totally illogical and absurd. First, there are many reasons why a student might not pass a course -- pandemic, illness, inept professors, overcommitments, etc. There are probably more reasons not directly in the student's control why they might not pass than reasons in their control (not smart enough, not dedicated enough, ...). I have interviewed, and hired, a lot of people throughout my career. I wouldn't penalize someone for passing a course the first time but I would be more impressed with someone who persevered until they succeeded. Not only have they reached the desired objective but they showed the dedication needed to overcome obstacles. The same logic can apply to anyone, or any situation.

     And that pretty much summarizes the use of failures. Failures allow a person to learn. If a person takes a test but is not told in what areas they did not do well in, they have lost the potential to learn and improve. That is true whether or not they achieved a "passing" score. Failures allow them to learn. Some failures are self-evident. Others have to be described and explained but lack of knowledge of them can be fatal to growth and improvement.

Personnel Shifts: Continuous adaptation to the future

 

     If you enter into a grocery store (my son and I do so every Sunday at 6am to beat the crowds), you will have noticed that a growing number of "self-checkout" systems ("SCOs") are available. Sometimes these SCOs are oriented towards a limited number of items ("15 or under"), sometimes they are an alternative to the regular full-service checkout lanes. Occasionally, when I have only a half dozen items, or so, I am led away from the full-service lane (by a store employee) over to an SCO. I almost never voluntarily choose them -- because I know that the number of human cashiers are reduced as a shifting of resources.

     Is this bad? Bank tellers shifting to ATMs and online banking? Grocery store cashiers giving way to SCOs? The general shift from "brick-and-board" physical stores to online shopping or automated inventory and checkout systems? Automated package, and luggage, sorting at parcel and luggage handling locations? And so on and so on.

     There are shifts in the economy and work force taking place. Many of these shifts are due to automation. There are a couple of primary effects of this ongoing shift. First, the lower skill jobs are disappearing -- but higher skill jobs are being created. This is not 1-to-1 (1:1). For every five lower skill jobs that are replaced by automation, one high skill job is created. I am making up this ratio. It will depend on the exact industry and other factors. But it is still the situation that fewer high skill jobs are created than are lost from the lower skill job pool. That's a large part of the reason why there is a shift towards automation -- to save labor costs.

     The second shift can be interpreted from the above but it is rarely openly acknowledged. As more and more lower skill jobs are replaced by automation, the number of jobs that lower skill workers can qualify for -- and, especially, that pay a living wage -- goes down. There are unemployed people who do not qualify for a position in which they can support themselves and that number increases every year.

     Educate them! True, that can make more people, who used to be lower skill, able to join the higher skill work force. But, as the number of people needed for businesses continues to decrease, we end up with more people without positions to occupy. Education, by itself, only gives the possibility of having more higher skilled people without jobs rather than lower skill people without jobs.

     One possibility is to spread existing work around to more people. If each position in the economy occupies a person for fewer hours, then the economy allows for work by more people, If a company needs a labor force of 800 people-hours per week, there can be 20 people working 40 hours/week or there can be 32 people working 25 hours/week or even 40 people working 20 hours/week. Note that these people still need to be making living wages (and, with their education and training, likely will expect more).

     Another possibility is for people to set up businesses for themselves! That is happening and it may all work out. Certainly my crystal ball doesn't have fewer cracks in it than anyone else's. Such a shift requires economies moving away from physical consumerism; factories will continue to have fewer and fewer needed workers and "brick-and-board" businesses will move away from lower skilled personnel. Note that moving away from physical consumerism also has side-benefits for the environment.

     These newly invented businesses will have to deal with non-physical merchandise. Skills, learning, ideas, coaching, artistry, creativity -- a new paradigm for the economy. These new entrepreneurs need different training, and ways of thinking, from that which is presently being presented within the education system. Learning facts becomes less important. Learning how to research, and interpret, facts becomes vital.

          Jobs that are not cost-effective to automate (at least we are not at that economic tipping point as of yet) will still exist for the indefinite future. And there will continue to be people who will not, or cannot, obtain skills that will work within the new economy or the higher skill level traditional positions. But they cannot work 40 to 60 hours and still not be able to afford food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. It is a recipe of desperation. We may not often put people in jail for stealing a loaf of bread, like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, but people who cannot succeed in living legally will find a way to live.

Free market achievement: A lack of control variables

 

     Academic, laboratory, and commercial studies have a common difficulty. In order to obtain valid conclusions about the specific factor, or quality, that is the focus of the study all other relevant factors must be kept constant. These constants are called control variables. If there are unidentified variables which might affect measurements or there are relevant variables that cannot be sufficiently taken into account, the measurements of the target factor do not necessarily support any conclusion. The measurements might not be due to the factors under study.

     This is true for studies on disease (possible environmental aspects -- known or unknown, genetic background, emotional and mental attitudes), social mediation techniques (lead contamination or other physical harmful aspects, social networks, personal history, etc.), sports, business success, or any other area in which a specific outcome is to be measured and quantified.

     It is currently popular for some to indicate that a person's outcome (physical, economic, education, social, business, ...) is due solely to their ability and their efforts. So, in this case, there are variables -- ability and efforts -- and measured outcomes (in the physical arena, educational achievements, business success, etc.) The harder you work and the more able you are, the better will be your results. And that is very likely true -- though luck (occurrences that you have no direct, or indirect, control over) will always play a part in the results.

     Once again, an individual, depending on luck, will be able to do better if they have greater ability and work harder.

     That conclusion is not possible when you compare two different individuals. If one person is just as able and works just as hard as another then they should be able to do as well? This is faulty logic -- there are too many variables that are not under control.

     It is similar to comparing two racers -- one of which is one foot from the finish line and has no obstacles and the other is a mile from the finish line with hurdles, landmines, broken glass, and dangerous animals attacking them along the way.

     What types of variables are not under control?

• Family income -- can they afford training/help/schooling?
  
  
• Family interaction and encouragement -- do they have encouragement, "cheerleaders", role models?
  
  
• Peer values -- is the goal of value to friends and associates?
  
  
• Biases and prejudices -- does everyone around them give them equal opportunities to achieve the goal?
  
  
• Physical health and environment -- have they had sufficient, and proper, food growing up? Have there been any inescapable toxic substances in their environment?
  
  
• Neighborhood -- includes peer values but also is it safe around their neighborhood? Do they have the opportunities needed to prepare themselves to achieve the goal?
  
  
• Factors X, Y, and Z -- like any other study, there are possibly other factors that vary between two people that are important in the achievement of the goal.

     It is possible to have a statistical conclusion when you compare equally varied pools of people. If you have large enough pools, the control variables will tend to average out between the two groups. But not for two individuals.

     People have achieved, and continue to achieve, fantastic things no matter how much the deck has been dealt against them. Working hard is always a positive factor. Striving to do one's best and to continue to improve must help in the journey to the goal.

     But comparing the effort, and abilities, needed to achieve a goal between two people just isn't possible if you cannot keep those control variables constant.

Apprentices, Journeypeople, and Masters: An old way renewed?

 

     Once upon a time (starting about 1088 AD), before job postings and corporate networks, there were guilds. According to good old Google, the first guild was that of a network of students in the area of Bologna in Italy, soon thereafter in Oxford in England, and Paris in France (though, in France, they called themselves masters rather than students). The very first guilds were more like clubs gathering people of related interests. If one considers it, a university is actually a situation where people wanting to learn, or to teach, are gathered. Over the next couple of hundred years, guilds grew in scope and division and split between merchant guilds and crafts guilds.

     [Note that I use the word "master" in this blog because that is the term that has been used throughout history. Usage has expanded meaning, and not always in positive ways, and people should substitute the alternative word of their choosing.]

     A merchant guild was a combination of an incorporation, a self-insuring entity, a network of contacts, and mutual security. As merchant classes grew, and changed, they became the representatives of the merchant class to the highest authorities (usually part of the royalty as allocated to the area) and ended up creating political offices and organizations needed for city services as well as support of merchants in-town and importing/exporting. They often interacted closely with the craft guilds (as follows).

     The other branch of guilds -- more directly relevant to this blog -- were the craft guilds. They were composed of people jointly working with, or around, a particular substance or product. Thus, there were guilds for those that worked with metal -- possibly refined to working with copper or some other specific metal. Weavers were an early guild as everyone in Europe needed clothing and fabric. And to clothe the feet -- leatherworking guilds and shoemaking guilds. There were guilds for jewelry, bakers, cabinetmakers, sculptors, armourers, and many other aspects of everyday life. Some guilds split and some aggregated depending on the differences in products and numbers of members.

     Guilds started small (even if split off from another guild). They could provide protection for the members -- both price and physical protection (during transport and from thievery). Quality could be monitored and enforced -- stabilizing prices and ensuring respectability and status. They often became effective monopolies with those inherent advantages and disadvantages (primarily to consumers).

     As they grew -- like most (but not all) organizations -- class lines stratified within the guilds and the purpose of the organization shifted to being primarily to maintain the organization and secondarily the product and craftspeople. Conflicts arose from the desire to split off from the original guild or desire to create new guilds working with associated, but not original, products. New positions became hereditary within families rather than allowing social movement and employment of interested people. Social restrictions were enforced -- facilitating discrimination against women and those not presently in favor. More aspects of guilds -- particularly in the Medieval times in Europe -- can be found here.

     When a new person wanted to learn a craft, they were brought in (sometimes "bought" in via contributions from a wealthy family with too many sons) at a beginning level as an "apprentice". As an apprentice, it was expected that a person would slowly learn the craft. At first, they were primarily used as janitors and gofers. As time proceeded, they would interact with the "master" (person under whom they were apprenticed) or an experienced journeyman (still under supervision of the master) to start working with the product. Finally, they would work directly under the guidance of the master on products. At this stage, they were considered journeypeople.

     The final jump between being a journeyperson and a master normally included a project, and examination, which was evaluated not only by their master but also a group of other masters within the guild. A person had to become a master in order to take on apprentices -- which allowed increased production (and profits). This can be directly related to current academic procedures of a student working on, and submitting, a Master's Thesis to obtain a master's degree.

     Once admitted into an apprenticeship (which might have required some fee if not family), the apprentice was under the care of the master. The master must provide proper housing (which might be some straw by the furnace or oven), food, and clothing. As they became journeypeople they might also be given some type of wages. Much of this was regulated by the guild as a whole.

     Within the United States, guilds never took hold much -- perhaps because many of the immigrants were seeking to leave older practices. Some of the service organizations (Rotary Club, USO, Lions Club International, Kiwanis, ...), professional organizations (Authors Guild, American Bar Association, National Association of Realtors, ...) and other loosely craft-oriented organizations (such as Freemasons, Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, Knights of Columbus, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, ...) may have some correspondence to guilds -- with combinations of attributes of both merchant and craft guilds. In some areas of Europe, guilds still exist and have some strength.

     So now we leap into current times. Rather than apprentices, we have interns. Interns often have the same type of progression from apprentices (janitorial and gofer) to journeypeople (actually working on products). Duties depend strongly on the type of work. Interns who are immediately able to work are often paid -- this usually means that they are in the midst of some academic training. Some internships are not paid. These are often positions with a lot of competition to fill the positions -- few openings, many wanting them.

     Unpaid internships strongly favor those from financially strong supportive families which, thus, has considerable social impact -- helping to perpetuate income classes. Paid internships can do the reverse -- allowing those, from less financially strong families, to have a chance to show their abilities. The individual ("master") or corporation ("sponsor") no longer directly promises support of the intern/apprentice -- if they are paid, they can support themselves from that pay. If they are not paid, they must support themselves through savings or by support from others.

     There is a trend away from traditional academic certification as qualification for positions -- especially technical positions. It is recognized that there are many different routes to obtain knowledge and experience. Internships can be of assistance to verify ability before making a commitment to hire people. But, in order to access all of the available pools of abilities, it is necessary to eliminate those aspects that are NOT connected to job performance. This means that some type of support needs to be made during the internship whether that is a minimal salary or provision of food and shelter (assuming that the internship period is short enough to not need additional clothing).

     This shift in direction has some positive aspects -- but only if done the correct way. Our educational institutions are still relevant -- but they need to interconnect with our economy and businesses. Internships can be a good way to bring more people's abilities into the economy -- but it needs to be done in a way that focuses on ability rather than extraneous things.

Invisible Maladies: What you see is not necessarily what you get

 

     I have two children who are on the autistic spectrum -- high-functioning. At one time, they would have been said to have "Asperger's Syndrome" but the latest edition of the specification manual (DSM-5) no longer uses that term. They are great people, and I am proud of them, and it is only when they are actively interacting with others that one notices that they don't interact quite the same as others. The chances are excellent that I am also "on the spectrum" though I am undiagnosed and have succeeded in training myself so that I only occasionally get into communications difficulties.

     Some groups look at being on the autistic spectrum as a disease for which one can find a cure. For many other people, being on the autistic spectrum is not considered a "malady". It is a different configuration, and organization, of the brain and it has advantages as well as disadvantages. I have occasional thoughts as to whether this change of brain function might be part of a quantum "jump" in human behavior -- the next step in human evolution such as described by Greg Bear in his book Darwin's Radio. That would explain why the diagnosis is happening in greater numbers. 

     My sons are in good company with many others (for some historical figures, it is only a likely diagnosis based on behaviors) who are considered to have been on the autistic spectrum -- people like Dan Ackroyd, Charles Darwin, Emily Dickinson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Barbara McClintock, Michelangelo, Andy Warhol, and Mozart -- just to name a few of many.

     One may notice that these folks have a couple of things obviously in common. They are very creative and they are capable of great focus. (For some individuals, these aspects are so strong that it renders them almost incapable of interacting with others -- this is why it is considered to be a "spectrum" of behavior.) They also had great difficulties in interacting with others (which can be overcome with work -- replacing "instinctual", or "innate",  responses with learned responses). And this difficulty interacting with others is the aspect that can be considered an "invisible malady".

     Unlike a Down's Syndrome person or a mobility challenged person or someone who has some other externally observable difference -- you cannot tell a person is on the autistic spectrum by just looking at them (with the caveat that you might interpret based on behaviors). There have been times I have wondered -- would it be better to have an "A" on the forehead as an advance indication or not? Would that carry with it extra preconceptions prior to even directly interacting with the person or would it reset the expectations of the "neurotypical" (non autistic-spectrum person)? In either case, the effect would still depend on the adequate education of the "neurotypical" person (which often still needs considerable improvement).

     I also have mild narcolepsy. My family has considered it quite hilarious to take photos of me nodding off at the circus, or the middle of a movie. I have also been known to fall asleep in the middle of a sentence while reading. It normally only lasts a few minutes. There are some medications that help with the condition but not everyone can deal with the side-effects. Midday naps can help as can regular nights of sleep. The primary time to be particularly careful is while driving. However, at work, this can also be an embarrassment to managers when they don't want to deal with medical conditions. Once again, it is an "invisible malady".

     There are many other "invisible maladies". Some are recognized by, and accepted by, others because of their prevalence. Migraines are one such -- enough people have migraines -- or directly know someone with migraines -- that people say "oh, yes, I understand". There are others -- kidney stones, hemorrhoids, ingrown nails, and so forth -- that are also known, and accepted, because of prevalence.

     It is those differences, and ailments, which are NOT prevalent that cause the greatest difficulty because it is harder for others to empathize and take behaviors into account. Many psychiatric conditions may fall into this category. Sometimes, the "malady" might be acceptable to others but it is too embarrassing for the person to tell others about it affecting them. In any case, the "invisible maladies" become acceptable by others only through experience and education.

Going to the robots: a shift of workforce

     People sometimes say that we are "going to the dogs" -- well, I would say that we are really "going to the robots". Robots were named in 1920 by the Czech playwright, Karel Čapek, within his hit play "R.U.R" -- or Rossums UniversalRobots. The word robota initially was used to indicate servitude or forced labor. So, in accordance with the original usage, there are quite a few humans who would qualify. Within the play, the manufactured robots were described as soulless humans -- manufactured biological creatures without access to feelings or independent thoughts.
     Current usage applies to non-living mechanisms (with in-betweens of Cyborg and Android). In the past, it has been primarily used for non-living mechanisms which retain the general shape and capabilities of living humans. It has now expanded to mechanical reproduction of actions previously only possible by humans -- "robot arms", ATMs (replace bank tellers), self-check counters (replace cashiers), "humanoid" (adjuncts to healthcare, services -- huge future potential), and so forth. Robots are classified in various ways -- methods of movement, category of use, versatility (programmed for one use, capable of multiple uses, or adaptive (AI)), and others.
     Leaving out definitions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and potential challenges therein, there are many consequences of a shift of labor to robots. By definition, a robot capable of performing a human duty, or action, displaces the human -- the human is no longer needed for this duty. However, the robot needs to be designed, built, programmed, and maintained. One can put together formulas of sorts. (#Robots * useful lifetime) replace workers (net negative of workers). (#people needed for design, building, programming, and maintenance * time needed) required by robots (net positive of workers). Design, building, and programming takes a finite (limited -- it stops at some point) amount of time and the efforts during that time may create a large number of robots. Maintenance is ongoing but one person might take care of dozens, or even hundreds, or robots.
     The final effect is that robots replace workers but require more highly skilled people for a smaller amount of time. This means that, as robotization of society occurs, people will need more and more education and technical and focused training. And, for each specific number of robots put into the workplace, fewer people are needed for support activities. The more robots, the fewer (but more highly educated and trained) people needed.
     This type of shift of workers occurred in the "Industrial Revolution" (mid 1700s to mid 1800s). Very early robots such as automated looms displaced traditional weavers from their professions. In response, there were riots which were stopped with considerable violence. Eventually, workers learned new trades and shifted up in education to take new roles which developed.
     This same shift will be needed for the new "robotic revolution". Greater amounts of education and training for people but, since fewer people will be needed to attain the same results, fewer hours of work per person. This could conceivably iterate (the process continues with additional, more highly educated, workers displaced) until one has a similar situation as posed by Isaac Asimov in The Naked Sun, where there are plantations of robots with isolated humans having few required tasks.
     I am not ready to anticipate robot plantations as of yet. But, we may very well be entering into a period where active labor is done by fewer and fewer people with higher levels of education and training. If so, there will be a strong need of greater emphasis (and availability and affordability) on continued education, more deliberate labor policy oriented at reducing the number of work hours per worker, and methods of distributing savings and benefits across the entire labor pool.

Equal opportunity -- that fragile illusion

     Most people think that everyone should have equal opportunities -- opportunity for financial success, opportunity for professional success, opportunity to be and do what they want, opportunity for happiness (in whatever way it is defined). There are those few who feel that they can have what they want only by denying others -- but I believe that most feel that equal opportunity is a good goal.

     There are also people who state that they believe that this is reality -- that there truly is equal opportunity for everyone. If someone is poor, it is because they just haven't worked hard enough. If someone doesn't have health care, it is because it wasn't really important to them to achieve. If someone has not achieved the professional and career level that they want, it is because they aren't good enough and/or haven't worked hard enough.

     As is often true of perceptions, there is a bit of reality mixed in. All the above COULD be true -- maybe the person did not work hard enough, maybe they weren't good enough, maybe something wasn't important enough for them to choose -- they chose something else of equal cost that was of more immediate importance for them. But the idea of equal opportunity is that each person has EQUAL access to the opportunities that allows them to succeed in whatever definition that may be.

     As I said earlier, most people think this should be and there are some who feel that that is the way that it is. It is a fragile illusion and is just not true for most people. Obstacles exist and not everyone has the same obstacles, or the same amount of obstacles, or the same ease of working through obstacles. While it is still possible for someone with many, many, obstacles to achieve "success" they may need to work many times harder AND encounter rare opportunities that many in their situation do not encounter (that is, they have to have "luck") as opposed to another person who has to work very little and have many opportunities presented.

     At heart, there are a number of different areas which present these uneven obstacles. Although I will present them in categories, they might fit into multiple categories or be "properly" classified in a totally different category. I won't argue about such -- what I am presenting is the idea that, because of all of these obstacles which are not the same for all people, equal opportunity is an illusion and, in order for the chance of "success", sometimes outside help is needed. Some of these areas include:

• Nutrition. We presently have young children in Flint, Michigan growing up having had excess levels of lead in their drinking water. This will affect them all their lives. With continuously deteriorating infrastructure, including water lines and treatment plants, this is not unique to Flint even though it presently gets the headlines.
  
  Although few starve in the United States, malnutrition still exists (see previous blogs on nutrition and economics) because good nutrition requires good food and time to prepare and the poor often do not invest in this. With malnutrition, the full individual potential is difficult to achieve.
  
• Income. Income facilitates many things. It allows access to better schools and teachers. It allows more time to be spent on activities for learning and relaxation rather than for survival. It provides access to networks of people who also have easy access to facilities and opportunities which can make a huge difference.
  
  Even though general attributes which may lead to success exist independent of wealth, or pigmentation, or ethnic history, income does help, and always has helped, to eliminate obstacles and ease the road to opportunities.
  
• Prejudices. Opportunities can be explicitly denied to others because of the prejudices of those with the power. While prejudices can also exist on the part of the less powerful, those with power have the ability to "close the door" to others. Prejudices may be from most recent nationality ("Irish need not Apply", "No Chinese allowed", "Wetbacks not admitted", ...). They may be based on "race" (usually applied based on skin pigmentation, speech, or body patterns). They can be based on gender (male, female, trans-sexual, etc.). They can be based on religion, or ethnic background, or any other aspect that can be used as a separating label.
  
  Whatever prejudice exists, it can be used by those with power to limit opportunity and often has, both in the past and in the present.
  
  
• Health. "People have diabetes because they choose a bad lifestyle." Sorry, but I did not choose my mother or my grandfather. Perhaps I could have eaten, or lived, in a manner that would have lessened my chance to get diabetes --  but I have no control over my genetic history, the preservatives, hormones, pesticides, insecticides, food additives, or other aspects of our environment which are now leading to rising cases of diabetes.
  
  People do not choose to be born blind, or deaf, or without use of some of their limbs. While there are many strong, courageous people who have overcome such obstacles -- they are still obstacles that others do NOT have to combat and, thus, prevent equal opportunity.
  
  In addition to birth conditions and genetically-inclined diseases, people encounter other health issues through their lives. With proper health care, most can be worked with, but many people in the U.S. do NOT have full access to proper health care. Some health issues can arise out of personal choices (smoking, drinking, illegal and legal drugs, ...) and some feel that others should not help support them in the consequences from these deliberate choices. But there are many other choices that are NOT deliberate and even the deliberate bad choices are made from an environment of unequal possibilities.
  
• Appearance. OK. It shouldn't be this way but a taller person is more likely to be elected to office. A more fit person is more likely to be offered an opportunity that interacts with the general public. Societal views of "attractiveness" gives an advantage, or disadvantage, in the getting of jobs and of the likelihood of getting raises.
  
• Access. I talked about the aspect of income of giving access to opportunities. However, there are also physical access aspects. Currently, there is debate about getting rural access to broadband Internet -- it costs more to provide such but there is reluctance to charge rural people more (similar to the issues involving landline telephone access in the early and mid 20th century).
  
  If you live an hour from the closest library and cultural centers, it will make a difference. If your local town, or neighborhood, has limited possible choices and you cannot go elsewhere, it will make a difference.
  
• Education. Beginning with the time of Benjamin Franklin, and before, the idea of public education has been an important one to improve the chances of equal opportunities. Funding has always been a handicap to providing equal education but the struggle has continued with parents and teachers advocating for better, and more equal, public education.
  
  The "successful" -- even those who have been able to make use of private education -- have equally made use of public education to provide the workers needed for them to achieve their goals. Public education is needed to provide for the various types of workers needed within a society. Debate exists about how far along financial help should be provided for education -- but educated people are needed by society and, in my opinion, society should pay for what society needs. It is certainly an area to debate but it is true that the rich cannot exist without public education even if they do not directly make use of it.
  
• Role Models. Sometimes the use of language for various positions is made fun of as being "politically correct". However, if a postal carrier is always referred to as a mailman then people WILL think of a "man" in the role -- even though the gender has nothing to do with it. Similar to a congressperson. It would be possible to refer to people as congressmen and congresswomen but, in reality, gender has nothing to do with the role and it is both easier, and more accurate, to refer to them as congresspeople.
  
  On the visual side, if people see people who come from similar ethnic or religious heritage in a particular role, they will think that that is a role in which they might find themselves at some time. If a CEO that is pictured is a woman as often as a man, then the term will become non-genderized. People find it much easier to imagine themselves in a specific role if others who remind themselves of themselves can be seen in those roles.
  
• Physical Environment. A home is much more than a house, or apartment -- but having someplace stable to call home is important to people. It is important to their sense of stability and of being able to make plans for the future. In a similar fashion, it needs to be a safe place -- no rats coming out of the toilet or patches of plaster falling off the ceiling in the middle of the night. It needs to be sufficiently warm in winter and bearable in summer so that they can study, think, and relax.
  
• Home Environment. A final (for this blog) category of obstacle is that of the home environment. This is in addition to the physical environment. Are there people to talk to? People to encourage and help? People to comfort and aid when things don't go wrong? Is there an environment of angry survival or hopeful loving comfort and support? While there is not that much, in isolation, that society can do to help in this -- it CAN be helped with the removal, or minimizing, of the other obstacles that people encounter.

     These are just a few types of obstacles that can stand in a person's way to the path of opportunities. What others come to mind for you? What are the best ways to make obstacles more even and allow something closer to "equal opportunity"?

Computer Literacy?

My 10-year-old, fifth grade, son came to me the other day -- he had a micro SD disk that he said had cheat codes on it that he wanted to use for some Wii games. I connected up my card reader to the USB connection on the Windows machine and looked at the files. I looked -- and then I rewatched the Youtube tutorial on how the program was supposed to work -- then I said to him "OK, this is the data file -- where is the program?" He responded "what is a program?".

Admittedly, only people with a historical bent are truly interested in how I started programming with little toggle switches on the front of a DEC computer -- or the huge decks of punched cards that I used in college to meet the needs of my programming classes. But, I do think that children who are in a school with a computer lab and multiple computers in the classroom should not be asking "what is a program?" by the time they're in fifth grade. And it's a good school.

Computer literacy seems to be interpreted as the ability to use particular programs (even if they don't know what a program is). My son did a couple of PowerPoint presentations last year for class and he's used Microsoft Word for a few papers. He has no problem in using a browser (even if he doesn't know what a browser is) and searching for information with Google. BUT, I still maintain that it is hard to transfer skills from one program to another without knowing some computer basics.

Many of the readers of this blog will already know most of this -- but I'm going to use my next week of blogs to talk about computer basics that I, personally, think ought to be known to be computer literate.

Subjects will include:

What is a Computer?

What is memory, files, and storage?

What are data (besides being a character on Star Trek: The Next Generation)?

What is an operating system (all my children keep complaining when a Windows program won't work on the family Macintosh)?

What are programs and how do they work?

What are peripherals -- what is I/O?

And any other topic that comes up within this realm. I once wrote a book ( never published) on computers and how they work -- let's see if I can summarize in a set of reasonably sized blogs.