Education


The wind is still on top of Machu Picchu today. I look down at this strange mix of wonders of both men and god(s), where stones are set upon rocks which build up to homes, together making a place for the movements of men, women and children now long gone

I walk from terrace to temple to terrace as guides rattle on like broken records about major battles and archeological discoveries– the capital H History lying within the ruins in the sky.

But I feel that the stories which truly give this place depth are left untold, palpable but hidden. These are the tales of men and women falling in love, of jealousy between friends, of families formed, flourishing and dissolved. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the true heartbeat of Machu Picchu.

*          *          *

Fall back to the summer of 1943 to hear the words of the poet Pablo Neruda anew, penned from this same mountaintop. Listen to his moment of transformation in “La Altura de Machu Picchu” (XII):

Look at me from the depths of the earth,
tiller of fields, weaver, reticent shepherd,
groom of totemic guanacos,
mason high on your treacherous scaffolding,
iceman of Andean tears,
jeweler with crushed fingers,
farmer anxious among his seedlings,
potter wasted among his clays–
bring to the cup of this new life
your ancient buried sorrows.
Show me your blood and your furrow;

Is it not the echoes of everyday from these men and everyday that frame our own stories—be they of love, ambition, hopes, and fears– into some larger (insignificant?) context?

*          *          *

My friend Max and I shelve ourselves onto an agricultural terrace overlooking the ruins with some bread and water, and I pull out Annie Dillard’s book “For the time being.” Dillard’s writing contains power in the way it holds in tension the seeming insignificance and prominence of the experience of being human. She notes the irony in which lives can be abstracted into statistics (230,000 dead in a Haitian earthquake) while still holding such singular importance to our experience (like the love-stricken Romeo and his inability to see life beyond Juliet). So which is it? Is Juliet one, or is she one of two-hundred thirty thousand?

Dillard writes:

Are we ready to think of all humanity as a living tree, carrying on splendidly without us? We easily regard a beehive or an ant colony as a single organism, and even a school of fish, a flock of dunlin, a herd of elk. And we easily and correctly regard an aggregate of individuals, a sponge or coral or lichen or slime mold, as one creature– but us? When we people differ, and know our consciousness, and love? Even lovers, even twins, are strangers who will love and die alone. And we like it this way, at least in the West; we prefer to endure any agony of isolation rather than to merge and extinguish our selves in an abstract ‘humanity’ whose fate we should hold dearer than our own. Who could say, I’m in agony because my child died, but that’s all right: Mankind as a whole has abundant children?

The words ring poignant on this mountain. The similarity of my stories with those long gone make me wonder whether this resonance makes my world important or insignificant. I see the stories of men long-gone stand together with those of my present—my own feelings of love tenuously held and lost, of evolving hopes and fears, of the ambiguity of my story mid-writing. Similarly, I sense the resonance of my present with those lives of future others who will till the land on this side of Eden. I strain to hear their wisdom, cringe to hear their critique.

How terrifying, this similarity, as though we are but a pixel on a painting, a spec of sand in a desert! “What meaning does anything have” we protest in the trek towards nihilism, “if my (love/life/journey) is not in some fashion different, if I am not in some fashion different?”

Or is it perhaps freeing, this notion of you and me as a hive of bees? For can I really handle the pressure that comes with an over-prominent story? Poet and essayist Christian Wiman recently writes, “Anxiety comes from the self as ultimate concern, from the fact that the self cannot bear this ultimate concern: it buckles and wavers under the strain, and eventually, inevitably, it breaks.”

Time is strangely held together in these moments, on these mountains. It is as if the past, present and future cannot be authentically separated. It is almost as if they move together by way of dance in the air– memory’s melody allowing the past to inform the present, the harmony of dreaming as the sound of the future calling the present into action.

*          *          *

I hear the echoes of Machu Picchu, for to be conscious of these stories is to see my own stories, in both triviality and beauty, in a different light. Maybe to feel my own anxieties in context is to know, but for a moment, the way we are all a part of this harmonious time. It is to know that we are bit players nestled among larger stories, which will be told again and again, around fires, and in novels and on stages. Perhaps this is what it is to feel as a flock of humanity.

In writing on our modern state of anxiety, Wiman points to James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” suggesting its greatness, “is partly in the way it reveals the interior chaos of a single mind during a single day, and partly in the way it makes that idiosyncratic clamor universal. However different the textures of our own lives may be, Bloom’s mind is our mind; the welter of impressions he suffers and savors is a storm we all know.”

Likewise, on this particular day, in this particular moment, the whisper of Machu Picchu is that while we are all containers of the same stories, they are still worth telling, that they are all worth living. Perhaps our moments are meaningful, despite their triviality, in that we are all children of god. Or, if you must, consider this same sentiment with less conventionally religious language… a necessity if our language must sometimes be, “stripped of (its) religious meaning… (in the same way that) faith itself sometimes needs to be stripped of its social and historical incrustations and returned to its first, churchless incarnation in the human heart” (Wiman).

The wind is still today on Machu Pichhu. It is as though the trees were asked to remain motionless while they receive a painting from the rising sun. We should be grateful for this silence. For it is in here, among these ‘ancient buried sorrows,’ and amidst the tales of “blood and… furrow,” that Machu Picchu truly begins to speak in its pregnant silence.

It has always been a dream of mine to give a college commencement address. This either means that I have something to say, or that I THINK I have something to say, hopefully more the former than the latter. Stephen Chu, the current secretary of energy, gave the speech at Washington University this weekend. When I graduated from Calvin College, President Bush gave our speech.

Anyway, because I may never have the chance to give a real commencement speech, I thought I would put down some words in a venue I know I can be published (immediately)… this blog!


*          *          *          *          *

Class of 2010, before I say anything else, let me say this… Congratulations! Yours is an accomplishment worth savoring!

Congratulations on spending four plus years of your life accumulating knowledge, theories, and various ways of parsing the world. Congratulations on leaving that weird microcosm called high school and entering another especially unique place in college. You formed and dissolved relationships. You made hard choices about what paths are worth pursuing in a career. You learned to learn, you separated from your parents (to varying degrees of success), and you captured new ways of seeing the world and your place within.

Class of 2010, I say with confidence that you have more knowledge today than when you first came to this university nearly four years ago.

But as proud as you should be of those accomplishments, I hope you know this as well: this knowledge is a potentially necessary, but clearly insufficient condition of success in the game of life. And that which you DO NOT YET KNOW will be that which you will most need to survive what is to come.

This is a hard for me to say and be heard, because whether you admit it or not, there words will fall on deaf ears. They did for me at least. It is not that I did not listen, though that may be true as well. Rather, it is that I did not understand what was being said… the words could not grow into a personal understanding because they needed the nourishment only found in the mud, rain and sun of the world in all its starkness and strangeness… something I cannot give you from a podium on this May afternoon. They needed to grow into an understanding in the wilderness that we all enter when we walk out of these hallowed halls.In some real way, you won’t know what I really mean until you stand naked, broken and face-to-face with the world as it is and as it could be.

But let’s move closer to that understanding by playing a bit of a mind game. Let’s think of all that you might go through in the next stages of your life:

You will make friends, and will feel yourself grow away from those  you cannot imagine being apart. You will have success in your jobs, and you will have days when you wish you were 16 again because of the frustrating reality of bureaucracy, intellectual stagnation, and catty colleagues. You may not be able to have children even if you want them, and you may lose them in tragedy. If you are fortunate enough to see them grow, you will be simultaneously more disappointed and more proud than you can ever imagine in this moment. You will fall madly in love, and you will grow disillusioned as that person comes to light both in the reality of their glory and ugliness. You will question the beliefs of your parents. You will question your own deepest convictions. In the next few years you will enter a world that is much more like a blank canvas than the linear path you forged to get here– elementary to middle to high school filled with ACT prep, graduation requirements, all bathed in tangible metrics of success.

Hearing this should be both exciting and scary as hell.

But do you want to know the real scary part? Try telling me what the knowledge you accrued so far will do for you in those moments? Economics majors… you know how to beautifully model behavior with econometrics, and you know of a positive relationships between supply and demand. But what does your knowledge do in the moments of choice where answers don’t flow neatly from description? Psychologists out there, you know of dual process models of cognition, and ways to isolate causality by way of controlled labratory experiments. But do you know how to live, cry and continue to dream through, in-spite of, and because of future moments of desolation? Literature majors, you have read the great novels, and you can explain their themes by way of marxism, post-modernism, post-structuralism, any of the various -isms. But what happens when you become like the character that you studied from afar, when it is not so easy to move from the events you experience to a clear plot, and it feels impossible to see obvious meaning amidst pain?

In these moments, our knowledge falls sadly short of our high expectations. But if it is not this knowledge that helps us– at least not directly– how will we respond?

While I hate oversimplifications, there is one I learned in the few short years after college that I think is helpful for understanding our common dilemma. I have come to see that there are two types of people in the world– the romantic and the realist– and neither posture is sufficient for making it through all we will face.

The romantic sees the beauty in life. She continually sees the upside. While the romantic often has an over-inflated sense of the importance of their own story, this can be comforting in that the story is woven beautifully. He is a dreamer, and these dreams become so interwoven with one’s vision of the future and experience of the present that they often cannot be separated.  I have a bit of the romantic in me.

But the problem with the romantic view is that it is an abstraction, a move away from reality. Take love, one place where this view is exceedingly obvious. Sometimes relationships work out and sometimes they do not, but in either case you are breaking bread with people who are far from perfect, those who stand on the far side of Eden. While romantic films cloak the imperfection of another in a cute quirkiness, if you ever get to know real people who let you see themselves in vulnerability, you will realize that this view of the world ignores the fact that people and their personalities sometimes (often?) rub us the wrong way, and we them.  The romantic view of work is also flawed. I have had several romantic friends in Teach for America who expected the world of education to change immediately upon their arrival. But they have left  disillusioned upon bumping up against the structures of injustice, and the inertia of inaction. Romanticism is flawed in that it is an escape from reality.

On the other hand, we have realists. The realists see the world as it is. They do not pull away even if it is hard. They sing of the naivety of graduation speeches that tell them they will change the world. They cringe at romantic movies, and they often see the religious, the idealists and the artists as sadly delusional. I have a bit of the realist in me.

But the problem with the realist is exactaly the opposite.  If the romantic fails to see the world as it is, the realist cannot view the world as anything but broken, bruised, and bleeding. Cognitively, when people are in the midst of depression– negative realism to the extrem– their brain lacks a stability of serotonin and norepinephrine, which shapes the way they interpret events in their experience. We see a bit of what this looks like experientially in Vincent Van Gogh’s famous 1890 painting “At Eternity’s Gate.” In it, an old man sits in pale blue pajamas and weathered leather boots, head drooped in his hands. His eyes do not turn towards good memories, nor can they see the beauty of the crackling fire next to his chair. He does allow himself to dream of what may be. His focus is singular, blinding, and selfish. If romanticism is an escape from reality, realism, in a very real sense, is a narrowing of reality.

A friend of mine, and the head of the catholic student center at Washington University put it this way: all relationships move in three stages, from infatuation to disillusionment to choice. This being said, the romantic lives for infatuation, and their world seems most true when this vision comes into focus. But when the world becomes more complex than our rosy views of it, the disillusionment can become harrowing. The realist on the other hand cannot see enchantment in the world, its flattened, as the philosopher Charles Taylor writes. While the highs of their infatuations and lows of their disillusionment might be less extreme, I think they lose a depth in life that comes from seeing it not just as it is but also as it can be.

Class of 2010, know that while these are the two paths of least resistance, dispositions towards which we might naturally gravitate one way or another, they are not the ways of wisdom. If there is anything I have learned since I walked across the stage at my own graduation, flipping my tassel from right to left, it is that it is not enough to be a realist or a romantic alone, and that the way of wisdom must be forged somewhere in between.

But what stands between realism and romanticism, towards what goal shall we march on? Only unconditional love. Only a posture of seeing which cannot turn away from flaws (in ourselves, in others, in our goals), but also knows that this is not the end of the story.

Life is a series of relationships– with ideals, with communities, with friends, with jobs and with lovers. Do not believe the stories of the romantics who try to obscure these relationships from their complexity, who cannot stand the messiness. See the world as it is, and move courageously towards moments and people and experiences that will shatter your expectations. All the same, do not believe the pessimistic rants of those who narrow reality to what is currently, or even a view of what in the deterministic space where our dreams and the actions they inspire have no consequences. See the world in its fullness, but know that fullness is more than what is here now, that words matter, and that the transcendent has to be named as such to be made living and dancing among us. Do not love in these varying relations on conditions that they are easy, in the very least because you know that you are not easy to love. Move towards the world in a belief that there is beauty in complexity, and wisdom forged in pain.

Class of 2010, go knowing that while you leave with knowledge, you must be prepared to search for the narrow space between naive romanticism and narrow realism if you are to find wisdom. Move slowly towards loving in relationship of all forms (the world, your passions, your friends and loves) without conditions. Pour yourself into impossible passions, knowing that you can fail because the world, at the end, does not rotate on your axis. Live as the poet whose words do not pull them away from reality, but more deeply into it, into a “complete saturation of the actual” as Christian Wiman writes. Class of 2010, while I know that you go forth in knowledge, I hope you hold out your hands ready to reap the wisdom found when you engage what is real and what is hard with dreams of what will be and what does matter.

James Cameron’s Avatar has garnered a lot of attention of late, most recently with its impressive 9 academy award nominations.

Outside of these accolades, one of the more intriguing phenomenon associated with the film has been the relatively large number of individuals experiencing depression and/or suicidal thoughts following the film. In general, some people seem to be captured by the beauty of this world that ‘earth’ as we know it feels drab, and something only worthy of escape.

One viewer, Ivar Hill, wrote of this experience on a Avatar message board saying:

“When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed … gray. It was like my whole life, everything I’ve done and worked for, lost its meaning. It just seems so … meaningless. I still don’t really see any reason to keep … doing things at all. I live in a dying world.”

We are all drawn towards the beautiful in some fashion or another. No doubt, we all pursue this beauty… whether that be in romantic relationships, in the work or life we find appealing, or even in a draw towards music that resonates with our sense of what is true. But can beauty be a way to orient the ethical life? Can one seek after beauty and call this ethical?

In other words, is the ethical life best pursued by a legalist or an artist?

Part of me hopes that the answer to my question is the artist. I tend to think that the person who does something because they think it is a beautiful way to act conveys a more appealing picture of ethics than the tactician following a set of laws. But is this just a personal pipe-dream?

To be honest, I don’t know the answer to this question, but I want to try to flesh something out in the next post. Three question that might start the discussion… chime in as you feel appropriate.

  1. Does our experience of beauty make our experience of the ugly depressing and leave us with a posture of an escapist (e.g. Avatar), or might it spur us on to create beauty when it is lacking?
  2. How are our senses of what is beautiful conditioned by things which might make this intuition unethical or untrustworthy (e.g. Nazi’s perceiving the beauty of a pure Arian race, and thus the ethical act becoming genocide)?
  3. In what ways is the subjectivity of beauty a benefit and a drawback from the rigidness or objectivity of a ‘law’ based morality?

There are several interesting things that happen as people move from the college years to their professional 20s.

Let me start with the premise that college is the Mecca of idealism, and in many ways, idealism of a somewhat selfish variety. People dream big in learning environments that reward asking big questions with little in the way of personal set-backs. By saying selfish, I am not trying to say that people don’t have genuine dreams of wanting good things to happen (e.g. “I want international public health projects to flourish”), rather, I am arguing that such goals are often rooted in the self-reference (e.g. “I want a job at Partners in Health”). These pursuits give us meaning, and we’d like to think in our heart of hearts that their success is dependent on our involvement.

For example, while this might be a cynical way of looking at the following statistic, I have a hard time explaining the record enrollment in Teach for America from the 2009 graduating class (16+% of Yale’s 2009 graduating seniors for example) solely as a function of a massive increase in the number of people deeply concerned with education. Rather, I start by assuming people are interested in living a PERSONALLY meaningful life, and TFA has grown in exposure as a route that meets those criterion. This idealism is optimistic in college in that such needs can be partly fulfilled when one envisions one’s future life in these roles, apart from any actual involvement.

Fast forward a few years. Recent graduates are now neck-deep in their first or second job, and along with this often come some feeling of misalignment between reality with the past’s idealistic expectations. Not everyone will be the rock-star investment banker that they thought they would be… nor will everyone get to marry the cutest girl in their high school because that girl gets to choose only one spouse (usually)… and not everyone will have the salary or leadership opportunities they envisioned. Others feel a similar misalignment between their idealist goals (e.g. educational reform) and the resulting desired outcome. To use the previous example, TFA teachers, many of whom are my close friends (and family), begin to see the way in which the systems undergirding problems like educational inequality are difficult to move, and thus their individual pursuit of meaning/ purpose a bit blocked. At the very least, their agency in accomplishing this goal seems minimal.

So what happens to this group psychologically/ existentially, and how is this same world experienced differently? Though depressing for me to admit, I believe these experiences tend to push people from hopeful idealism to negative cynicism. To ease the tension between goals and outcomes, we lower expectations so our small contributions don’t feel so meager, or sometimes stop pursuing a goal all together. I can’t help but wonder if these reactions– let’s call them naïve optimism and negative realism– are the only ways forward, or if there might be a third way.

Let’s first consider if these two options are really that different at their core. I would argue that, though very different in behavioral manifestations, these ways of viewing the world share quite a bit in common in terms of motivation. Specifically, at the center of each impulse is a radical centering on one’s self, a radical sense of the necessity of finding PERSONAL meaning, achieving PERSONAL enlightenment, living with a tangible personal purpose. In his fascinating book “Saving God: Religion after idolatry,” Princeton philosoher Mark Johnson argues this self-oriented worldview emerges primarly from the structure of our consciousness:

Constantly finding oneself at the center, one finds oneself to be privileged– as something to be protected, as something to be prized. Thanks for our extended self-consciousness and our capacity to articulate what we find, what we in the higher animals merely an organizing form of animal self-protectiveness now becomes something more. It becomes a more or less explicit deliberative theme, a default starting point in one’s practical reasoning: one’s own interests just seem paramount (2009: 86)

When the self is radically important, optimism reigns when these goals seem achievable (college), and pessimism takes the stage when obstacles emerge (the professional 20s). I can almost hear Ernst Becker screaming out from the grave… “Can’t you see what I have been saying all along… your life is often a work in self-promotion, a project emerging out of your deep down fear of death, the death of all meaning.” The ancient sages roll over in their tombs, “Why didn’t you listen” asks the writer of Ecclesiastes, “when I said vanity of vanity, ALL is vanity!”

But hold up, before all seems lost. Might there be another way? Might there be a way to live between the tension of idealism and realism? Do we have to close our eyes to reality in order to dream? Johnson continues later in the book:

There is an experience– some would say it is a metaphysical experience; some would say it is inchoately religious- of being, as Ludwig Wittgenstein once put it, absolutely safe. (Wittgenstein appears to have had experiences of this sort when, as a medical orderly in the trenches in WWI, he was in danger of being shot, gassed, or blown up. Marcus Aurelius, another man of the trenches, describes a similar experience in his Meditations). Part of the content of this experience, as opposed to the content of its subsequent interpretation, is that no matter what happens, everything that is fundamentally precious will remain intact (p. 110).

Is not this the way forward, between the false forced dichotomy of idealism and realism? Specifically, it is not by achieving everything we expect for ourselves that we break free of this tension, but rather we grow by a fading of the self from the forefront, where we can finally stumble upon this realization that ‘everything precious’ often includes things outside the self, and thus is worth pursuing apart from our potential personal gain.  Is it not only with this posture that the TFA teacher can sit back and passionately engage rigid structures of educational injustice, even though their role in that change might be small? Is not this the only way to have the mind of the realist, and the heart and soul of a romantic?

Animal Collective’s record “Marriweather Post Pavillion”  is arguably one of the top albums of 2009 (listen here). According to Pitchfork’s Mark Richardson:

With their constantly evolving sonic identity, in-your-face vocal mannerisms, and open-ended ideas about what their music might “mean,” Animal Collective seem designed to inspire obsessive fans and vociferous detractors in equal measure.Merriweather Post Pavilion, their latest full-length, has been anticipated to an almost ridiculous degree, with blogs and message boards lighting up with each scrap of new information or word of a possible leak. No one who’s been looking forward to it should be disappointed. Everything that’s defined the band to this point– all those strands winding through their hugely diverse catalog– is refined and amplified here.

So, what is it about them as individuals that makes their work so effective? What allows them to create music that has a sense of ‘strands winding through their hugely diverse catalogue’? Let’s briefly consider one aspect of their biography:

In parallel with his environmental policy and marine biology studies, Weitz hosted a noise show at WKCR, Columbia’s college radio station. On weekends, he and Portner borrowed Avantgarde music records and listened to them all night at Weitz’ dorm room which rapidly broadened their musical horizon

In other words, it seems that it was not primarily their formal music education that enabled their musical creativity. While they needed musical knowledge/ training to be able to integrate what they learned, it seems that the learning that really enabled their unique sound took place in a more fluid/ random environment. To put it another way, their formal education was necessary but not sufficient to the development of their unique music stylings.

If this is indeed the case, it seems to suggest that there is in fact something emergent about the way our learning takes place in our stories. But do our university systems allow for this type of natural emergence? Do the carefully crafted educational paths we prepare for our selves/ children/ students (going from prepatory school, to top university, to top graduate programs, etc) really  facilitate this type of development?

In the following article, Louis Menand suggests that there is something antiquated about our educational systems with their primary focus on knowledge transfer. It is an approach which I would argue crowds out the potential fluid nature of learning, while simultaneously failing to teach the creativity necessary to solve the more interesting social problems, and/or to make the most interesting music:

The American university is a product of the nineteenth century, and it has changed very little structurally since the time of the First World War. It has changed in many other ways–demographically, intellectually, financially, technologically and in terms of its missions, its stakeholders, and its scale–and these changes have affected the substance of teaching and research.

But the system is still a late nineteenth-century system, put into place for late nineteenth-century reasons. The extraordinary series of transformations of higher education after 1945 have strained it. To the extent that that system still determines the possibilities for producing and disseminating knowledge, trying to reform the contemporary university is like trying to get on the Internet with a typewriter, or like riding a horse to the mall.

If there is something emergent about the ways our minds learn, something non-linear about the development of authenticity in our own stylings (music or otherwise), might it be true that we don’t become true selves and unique in style through following a predefined path. Rather, might it not be possible that we could best develop authenticity in styling (music or otherwise) by following paths, in fits and starts, towards some gradually (but consistently) emerging personal mission.

So can this be built into educational systems, and specifically into classes that are to teach something about the creative/ entrepreneurial process? What if the best way to teach entrepreneruship is not the way we have tended to organize such courses (example here) but rather by providing a space to minimally guide the non-linear emergent learning situations, while also providing the theory and tools to harness such visions into successful businesses (or albums, or art pieces). It is the challenge of finding the right balance between chaos and structure.

I think games are the future of education.

-E.O. Wilson

In a provocative interview on NPR’s Morning Edition yesterday, eminent biologist E.O. Wilson makes the above prediction about the likely growing (read: all-encompassing?) role of games in the education of the future.  His logic goes something like this:

Wilson imagines students taking visits through the virtual world to different ecosystems. “That could be a rain forest,” he said, “a tundra — or a Jurassic forest.”

Wilson said that for the most part, we are teaching children the wrong way. According to the biologist, “When children went out in Paleolithic times, they went with adults and they learned everything they needed to learn by participating in the process.”

That’s the way the human mind is programmed to learn, Wilson said.

But he believes that today, virtual reality can be a steppingstone to the real world. It can motivate a child to exploration.

It’s an interesting point, and one that might be very likely given how we often fetish our technology (I know this tendency first hand … I have a Kindle), but is it the right path? Perhaps instead of games as THE future of education, how about games as a PART of this future?

learningI know I know, such muffled claims are less likely to gain the ears of the masses, but I believe that learning is too multidimensional to warrant a singular approach, not matter how good or glitzy. While I buy that experiences can motivate learning, is such experience-driven engagement the only type of learning that we think is valid? Even if our ancestors learned everything they needed by participating in the process (thus perhaps making it the easiest process), is this the only type of knowledge worth accumulating?

I am teaching a negotiations course for undergrad business students at Washington University in St Louis this semester. In the syllabus, I structure the course around theoretical knowledge accumulation, negotiation simulation (role played negotiations), and real world analysis (HBS cases and discussion). A video-game negotiations course would do a good job approaching the latter two goals (simulation and analysis), but would it build theoretical knowledge? Similarly, would analysis and simulation be hindered without this theoretical knowledge (an empirical question, I suppose)? And while I agree with Wilson that simulations might motivate engagement with theoretical material, they need not.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not against experiential learning as facilitated by the game medium. I even wrote about one such potential approach here. Still, I think the best pedagogical style has to provide multiple types of knowledge (tacit and theoretical), and then attempt to teach individuals to obliterate the boundaries between them over time. An education should help us to understand the world in frameworks, and yet simultaneously realize how such frameworks are but a limited way to access such realities. I would argue that this is best done through some combination of theory, simulation and experience, all the while developing the cognitive skill sets to move seamlessly between such abstractions.

(500) days of summerThis blog has been on a bit of a review kick as of late… from Adam’s identification of 5 great albums from 2009, to John and my respective reviews of “The Unlikely Disciple.”  As such, who am I to deviate from this momentum?

A few weekends ago, I went to see Marc Webb’s movie “(500) days of Summer.” The film is a sharply written non-love story about two twenty-somethings, their search for companionship, and the ways in which those paths indirectly and tragically deviate through each other’s lives.

My goal in this post is not to give a review of the movie per-se, but rather to bring up what I hope is an interesting observation about the role of film and experience in learning. Nevertheless, it might be helpful to have some background for those not familiar with the story. Here is a brief excerpt of the review of the film by Salon’s Stephanie Zacharek:

“(500) Days of Summer” begins at the end of a relationship, doubles back to the precarious, fluttery days at the beginning, and traverses some of the territory in between. But most of it deals with the tragicomedy of the post-breakup phase, the period during which the spurned lover is left trying to figure out what the hell just happened, and why.

One of the interesting things in watching a film for me, as an audience member, is trying to determine a clear take-away… something learned that I did not know at the beginning of the movie. In (500) days, one clear question that emerges at the end is whether we think Tom should have avoided being in this relationship were he to live life again, especially given that it did not end up working out. From a personal take-away standpoint, the question becomes whether we should we similarly avoid our respective “Summers”? If you answered yes, you can point to the fact that this relationship caused Tom a lot of angst and pain that he could have benefitted from avoiding.  If you answered no, it is easy to point to the fact that this relationship shaped Tom in ways which, arguably, were at least somewhat productive. Our answer to this question hinges on how we see risk and failure in life.

On this point, the question of take-away dovetails nicely with Matthew’s Crawford’s discussion of risk, personal experience and learning in his book “Shop Class as Soulcraft,” which I discussed briefly before here. In this book, Crawford makes the case for the importance of working with one’s hands, and does so specifically by detailing the ‘tacit knowledge’ one gains from these experiences. In addition, he argues that it is not only experience that leads to learning, but also the experience of failure that come along with this engagement. According to Michael Polanyi, the existence of tacit knowledge is shown in how ”we can know more than we can tell’ (1967: 4). For Crawford, the importance of tacit knowledge is demonstrated in the limitations of current motercycle user manuals. He argues that technical writers– who often lack personal experience with the bikes– fail to convey important details that flow from implicitly garnered tacit knowledge.

One specific type of indirect experience that can contribute to our ‘tacit knowledge’ base is film… the experiences (and experiences of failure) that we have vicariously by resonating with it’s characters. Over at his blog, philosopher Jamie KA Smith points to a book on the role of film in an audiences psychology: Carl Plantinga’s “Moving Viewers: American Film and the Spectator’s Experience.” It is on my to-read list. Writing of Plantinga’s book, Smith quotes and extends the author’s argument:

“Any abstract meaning that a film might have is ancillary to the experience in which that meaning is embodied.” What a film means cannot be reduced to the proposal “message” that might be gleaned from it. This is because “[e]xperience creates its own meaning, and in some cases the meaning to be taken from the experience of the film may contradict the abstract meaning an interpreter might glean from film dialogue, for example. Affective experience and meaning are neither parallel nor separable, but firmly intertwined.”

In both cases, Crawford and Plantinga make a case for knowledge that is non-reducable to propositions like “Motorcycle problem X is solved by Y” or “This movie is about… and thus we should therefore…”  This “tacit knowledge” comes by hands-on experience with murky environments, often with some degree of failure. In good film, this comes indirectly through experiencing the world of characters going through similarly ambiguous situations.

For Tom, while his relationship with Summer did not work out the way he expected, his understanding of love beyond a propositional level was deepened through the experience. He lived in pain, and this pain could not/ should not be subsumed under a simple ‘pleasure seeking/ pain avoidance’ framework. Rather, it holds the potential for building a deeper understanding of the world. As viewers, it is here that we cannot leave Tom, but rather must stand with him in solidarity. I also don’t think the best take-away is that Tom should have avoided a relationship with Summer in the first place, or that we should avoid these types of risky situations in our own lives… relational or otherwise. Rather, we should affirm that a specific type of learning can only come by living through the “Summers” of life… be they in relationships, activities or the jobs we pursue. Without them, we avoid a good deal of pain, but we also miss out on the wisdom that comes from the experience.

“To teach, or not to teach” is increasingly the question in the nascent but rapidly expanding microfinance industry.  Each microfinance bank must decide whether it wants to offer free business training/education/consulting to its borrowers.  While the exact business model varies by bank and by region, microfinance banks generally make small, unsecured loans to poor people to enable them to start (or expand) their own businesses.  The capitalistic undertones, empowerment of the underserved individuals, and solid financial results have made microfinance a darling of the development community in recent years.  Industry leaders have been split, however, on the importance of providing free business training along with each loan.

As a practitioner in the industry (I work at a private equity fund that purchases and manages microfinance banks around the world), I have spent not a small amount of time spinning my proverbial wheels on this question.  My initial reaction, as an unfettered, starry-eyed believer in the power of education, is that education is good and the more the better.  But upon further reflection and study, I have found this proclivity challenged.

First, I should clarify what I mean by “business training” and “education”.  All (good) microfinance loan officers do a fair amount of hands-on training as part of the credit approval and monitoring process.  This tends to include covering basic accounting/bookkeeping and assessing the borrower’s business concept.  Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, where the bank’s lending model is focused on groups (one large loan given to a group of 6-12 people who have joint liability for the total sum and meet once every week or two), the group serves as a valuable sounding board and learning tool for each of its members.  The business training that is being debated is in addition to this; it aims to give potential entrepreneurs ideas about what types of businesses they could start and/or directs existing ones about how they can grow or change.

While on the surface, this seems like a great idea, it also suggests a certain hubris or arrogance on our part.  Who are we to tell a small-scale entrepreneur in Cambodia what he or she should make, sell, plant, or distribute?  It raises the question of what that capitalistic spirit we love so much really means – is it something inherent in each of us or does it have to be taught?  The inventiveness and brilliance exhibited by many of the entrepreneurs, without any help from “us” other than enabling through passive capital, is a humbling thing.  Who knows the local markets and local customers better than the locals themselves?

Many of the behemoths in the industry, from Mohammud Yunnus of Grameen, to Vickram Akula of SKS in India, to Compartamos in Mexico, have resisted the lure of suggesting what their clients should do with their loans.  What if the idea provided fails and the client defaults?  Is the client really to blame if it came from the bank’s own educator?

Furthermore, providing free education is a considerable expense that a bank could be putting towards underwriting more loans or reducing the interest rates it charges its customers.  At its core, a bank’s core competence should be analyzing and pricing credit; I believe it provides its most precious, long-term public good by being the best allocator of capital it can be.

I’m not implying that education isn’t critically important; I believe the development of education systems in lesser-developed countries is key to their ultimate success.  But I don’t think that a bank should be the educator.  I was dismayed by a recent NY Times article titled, “Lending Talent, and Money, on a Micro Scale,” which if you read it will leave you with a warm and fuzzy feeling about how great “we” are at educating the poor.  Are there cases where business education has helped?  Absolutely; just be wary of the self-affirming mindset that we know best.

AM Laboratory

AM Laboratory

The other day, a friend sent me a link to the aM laboratory tone matrix. Playing around with this music simulator made me think a bit about the role of experimental learning tools in education. You can check out the simulator here, but be prepared to lose an hour of your day (err…. or several hours?).

In the tone matrix, you press the dark grey buttons to make them white, and thus to “turn on” that specific tone.  Then, the simulator runs a continuous linear run through the matrix, playing whichever tones are highlighted. The lighter greyish spots on the picture to the left are a representation of the progression of the simulation (those notes were just played just before I took this screenshot). The tone matrix thus creates an environment of real time feedback where the tones selected and the sounds they create make a simultanous visual/audio representation of the constructed music.

For example, on the right is a picture of my recreation of “Boom Boom Pow” by Black Eyed Peas (Rachmaninoff was bit too complex for me right now.).  At the lower left of the matrix you can see the two bass notes (“boom boom”), followed by the “pow” in the upper part of the same quadrant, near the middle of the screen.  The melody is represented in the upper two sections of the matrix (“I got that hit the beat the block”), starting with the last three notes on the screen (upper right quadrant), and continuing with the other remaining three notes when the cycle begins anew.

Picture 2

Boom Boom Pow

So what are the benefits of using this tool for learning music?  Well, for one, in playing around with “boom boom pow”, I was able to test out different melodies, see the range between notes that create the harmonies of interest, and then experiment with temporal space to create the necessary rhythms. I could see and feel the difference between a rhythmic space of two and space of three that creates the syncopated ‘boom boom pow’ (3 spaces) as compared to the rhythm at the start of the melody (2 spaces). In the more complex composition shown at the top of this post, I experimented with different rhythms, multiple scales working simultaneously, and the use of space to emphasize tone.  And, while these methods are all available while plunking away at the piano, the benefit of this tone simulation approach is that the feedback is entirely in real time, and it allows you to ‘play’ at a level above your ability.  To be fair, the major drawback it is much less cool to pull out a macbook and play some tones on repeat than it is to dance your fingers across a Steinway Grand.

While the use of the simulator for music education is interesting in itself, it made me wonder whether these types of simulation techniques could be applied in the development of supplementary methods for teaching subjects like mathematics, economics, and even logic. In each of these subjects, a real-time feedback and multiple-sense learning approach could help teach an intuitive understanding of these topics, as a supplement to the application of formulas, and the following of rules. Think of it as the Suzuki method going digital and taking on other subjects… learning to do math/economics/ logic ‘by ear.’

Summer Vacation

Summer Vacation

Lazy summer days — the nostalgia that all adults dream for as their kids finish school and start a seemingly endless parade of days at the pool topped off by neighborhood night games. Public schools across the country are either nearly or completely finished with their academic calender, and thus entering the two to three month blissful hiatus of summer vacation. I am currently enjoying such benefits, having finished my first year of public school teaching close to two weeks ago. In fact, I have a whole new found appreciation for summer break, and am no longer sure who craves the summer break more … teachers or students. The screams and shouts from ecstatic kids heading home for the summer was matched — in my “unbiased” opinion– by the sighs of relief of a cohort of exhausted teachers on the last day of classes.

Coinciding with the end of the school year, I stumbled upon an interesting debate between Conor Clarke and Conor Frierdersdorf, from the Atlantic and The American Scene respectively. Conor Clarke recently penned an interesting piece, Why We Should Get Rid Of Summer Vacation, discussing the merits of a longer school year for eliminating inequality within the school system – specifically, inequality of opportunity. Frierdersdorf countered with his response, Our Children Aren’t Economic Inputs, ultimately disagreeing with Mr. Clarke and opting for the traditional school year. Here Frierdersdorf writes:

Okay, I’m all for addressing that inequity, but I’d prefer a method that doesn’t rob the wealthy kids — and the middle class kids if my childhood summers are any indication — of those edifying summer experiences. Give me Pareto optimality, please! Besides, kids already spend enough time within a public education system that teaches conformity and deadens love of learning. Let them take their summers outside the system, experiencing life, and getting value that it is difficult to represent on blog charts.

Both authors present compelling cases, and there is merit to both arguments. Personally, I grew up privileged enough to enjoy my summer break with a range of edifying experiences. Summer wasn’t simply an absence from school; rather, it was filled with a variety of enriching non-traditional academic activities (i.e. trips to the Museum of Science and Industry, the Chicago Field Museum, the Shedd Aquarium, visits to the local library, and challenging conversation from my parents). I fall squarely into the category of the middle class kid who benefited academically from the variety of summer activities. And Mr. Frierdersdorf’s response hits close to home: I loved my summer breaks and wouldn’t give them up for the world.

In contrast, I have recently witnessed first-hand the effects of a long summer break on my students in St. Louis. Specifically, while there are a variety of free, educational filled events and activities in St. Louis, few of my children take the chance to engage with this public sphere. Part of this lack of engagement derives from single parent working several jobs, and multiple shifts. It is challenging, to say the least, to forget the responsibility of work in a poor economy to take your child to the St. Louis History Museum. What results is that kids from lower socioeconomic groups come in far behind their higher socioeconomic peers because their summer hasn’t been filled with enriching academic experiences.

Paul Tough in his latest book, Whatever It Takes, follows Geoffery Canada and his quest to create a sustainable social safety net that offers equality of opportunity for children from Harlem. Canada offers similar insights on the impact of this “summer lag time” for his students. Children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can learn the same amount of academic content as their more affluent peers from September to May, but come in farther behind at the beginning of the school year because of categorically different summers. Should the government be obliged to alter existing education policy to create a system that values equality of opportunity? In some ways, yes. Providing equal opportunities (or at least removing unequal constraints) is at the foundation of this country.  Consequently, current education policy needs to be reexamined as our nation tries to effectively improve the education and future opportunities of its citizens.

I agree with  Conor Clarke’s argument for revising the current academic school year, even if it means less “summertime fun.” Our current system, a vestige from a former agrarian era, does not accurately reflect the challenges of urban education. The majority of kids from urban neighborhoods do not need a two month plus vacation devoid of learning simply because they cannot compete with the opportunities and experiences that their more affluent peers are encountering. Clarke emphasizes an important point – “Education is fundamentally about creating equal opportunities.” If we as a society affirm this foundation, then we need to closely review our current academic structure. A simple policy adjustment has the potential to drastically alter and reclaim the original foundation for public education – providing each student equal access to an exciting array of life experiences.

Next Page »