The Commonwealth Blog
Our latest Week to Week news quiz is now online at Huffington Post San Francisco. Take the test and see how knowledgeable you are about the happenings in the news.
This week at The Commonwealth Club of California:
• Middle East Discussion Group
• Rafe Sagarin: Learning form the Octopus
• High Speed Rail: Future of the Fast Track
• Daniel Patterson (POSTPONED)
• Professor Wanjiru Kamau-Rutenberg: Investing in Girls: Hope or Hype?
• Dennis Prager: Why the World Needs American Values
• Larry Gerston: California – The Not-So-Golden State
• Francis Tapon: Eastern Europe 20 Years after Communism
• Dr. Leonard Mlodinow: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior
• Week to Week (POSTPONED TO MAY 14)
Event details and reserve tickets: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events
This week at The Commonwealth Club:
• Aging Gracefully: Maintaining Dignity, Independence, & Quality of Life
• Van Jones: Rebuild the Dream (Silicon Valley)
• A Conversation with the Mayors of San Jose
• Michael McConnell: Why Is Religious Liberty the First Freedom?
• Paddle to the Sea: An Outdoor Adventure from the Sierras to the San Francisco Bay
• Van Jones (San Francisco)
• Vaughn Walker: The Private Law Office
• Power Poll
• Dale Carpenter – Flagrant Conduct: The Untold Story of Lawrence v. Texas
• John Stossel: Fighting Government (special breakfast program)
• Human Trafficking: Slavery 2012
FOR DETAILS & TICKETS: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/
Week to Week, the Commonwealth Club's just-launched program series offering lively commentary on current events, has partnered with Huffington Post San Francisco to provide you with a weekly news quiz, 10 questions to test your knowledge of current events.
Like the Week to Week program itself, the quiz aims to be smart and fun.
By Pria Whitehead
Last month, author and blogger Michael Ellsberg made an appearance at the Commonwealth Club to deliver a lecture on the problem of higher education. In his talk, titled “The College Industrial Complex and the Future of Higher Education,” Ellsberg addressed the question of youth unemployment in the United States and offered up a rough cost-benefit analysis of American college attendance. [Listen to his podcast.] Ellsberg’s analysis led him to conclude that higher education in the United States is, by and large, failing to prepare youngsters for the kind of work that would allow them to participate in – and contribute to – a functional domestic and global economy. He called for a change of focus away from traditional, degree-centered education and toward the accrual of practical experience – or “street cred” – through work experience within early-stage start-up companies. According to Ellsberg, start-ups comprise “the only area of the economy where one metric of success is how many jobs you’ve added.” In a domestic economy where the manufacturing sector is disappearing rapidly, Ellsberg argued, small and early-stage companies are critical to job creation. He went on to tout the value of a skill-based, “dynamic” start-up-acquired education as distinctly “non-academic.”
Two weeks prior to Ellsberg’s forum at the Club, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein published an article in Bloomberg Magazine titled “Harvard’s Liberal Arts Failure is Wall Street’s Gain.” Klein’s article focuses entirely on a very small percentage of the college-educated population, namely Ivy League graduates who subsequently pursue careers in finance. He attributes the continually high rate of Ivy-to-Wall-Street careers to the conclusion that a few years on Wall Street after college allows students, both educationally and financially, to make up for lost time. Klein describes a Wall Street career as “a low-risk, high-return opportunity that they can try for a few years and, whether they like it or hate it, use to acquire real skills to build careers.” He goes on to say that “Wall Street is promising to give graduates the skills their university education didn’t,” and even to assert that post-undergraduate jobs in finance are “filling a need that our educational system should be filling.”
Klein’s statements seem bold and broad in their implications. While the locus of his argument is miniscule in proportion to the scale and scope of this country’s economic and educational crises, it rests on the wider assumption that a liberal arts education fails to equip young adults with the necessary tools for effective and remunerative contributions to society.
Klein’s and Ellsberg’s arguments appear similarly disdainful of the concept of liberal arts education, but the alternatives that the two columnists choose to address are mutually distinct. While Klein’s argument focuses on the established (and establishment) structure of the finance industry, Ellsberg’s concentrates on the highly dynamic, even volatile world of nascent businesses. Ellsberg is primarily concerned with the economic consequences of personal career choices, whereas Klein’s argument is explicitly wrapped up in the social and hierarchical implications of the population whose fate he queries. Perhaps important, though, is that both take care to delineate their subject matter: Klein describes his Ivy Leaguers as “kids who have ample mental horsepower, incredible work ethics and no idea what to do next,” and Ellsberg assures his audience that he’s “talking about young people who are motivated and ambitious.”
While Klein’s and Ellsberg’s arguments are roughly representative of two separate ideological camps – one hierarchical, the other network-based and vaguely collectivist – both place a high premium on a certain fortuitous combination of knowledge and moral character. The value of this combination in our post-industrialist economy is hardly arguable, wrought though it may be, but the question remains: What role, if any, might a liberal arts education play in honing it? Is it really possible that none of the types of “real skills” touted by these thinkers feature prominently in the American college experience?
In his 2008 book Disrupting Class, which calls for a new structural and curricular paradigm of compulsory public education, Harvard business professor Clayton Christensen emphasizes the need to cultivate the character-based types of skills championed by Ellsberg and Klein. “We all know,” Christensen writes, “that becoming a great athlete or a great pianist requires an extraordinary amount of consistent work. The hours of time required to train the brain to fire the synapses in the correct ways and thus hone the necessary muscle memory and thinking required is no different from that needed to learn to read and process information or think through math and science problems. Unless students … are motivated, they will reject the rigor of any learning task and abandon it before achieving success.” Christensen goes on to highlight the importance of what he calls “intrinsic motivation” toward successful achievement at the grade-school level.
Despite its focus on internal rather than external or practical mechanisms of education, Christensen’s emphasis does not entirely counteract Klein’s and Ellsberg’s arguments. Rather, the type of student who has achieved relative success through “intrinsic” motivation would appear a likely candidate for continued motivation after completion of her compulsory education. In fact, the careers that Klein and Ellsberg explore are not so much ideals as they are models or exemplars of a particular type of continued education – one that might offer a necessary dose of extrinsic motivation to a student who has garnered her initial taste of success through intrinsic motivation.
If we were to follow, abstractly, the paradigms of these three authors, the process would appear to be the reverse of what one might expect: while compulsory education would emphasize intrinsic motivation, higher (and, to a large extent, elective) education would constitute a practical and fundamentally socially (or extrinsically) driven catalyst for success.
Two questions follow. First, how might we think about motivation as viewed along a broader spectrum of education? Are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation necessarily exclusive, and/or do they necessarily occur in stages along a path to educational and professional development? Second, what types of post-secondary educational and professional models are best suited to the cultivation of the skills that are most valued in our knowledge-based economy?
Stay tuned for Part II.
"Those who swam from the sinking steamer at the last moment had no idea that the vessel was in danger of sinking until her bow suddenly sank deeper in the waters a few moments before she sank. As they stated, had they believed the vessel was in any danger of sinking, they would have had sufficient time, following the launching of the lifeboats, to have prepared temporary life rafts sufficient, in that calm sea, to have saved the lives of hundreds.""…These survivors stated, however, that until the sudden downward dip of the vessel forward, coincident with the rush on to the boat deck of the steerage passengers, they did not apprehend that there was any danger of the vessel sinking for hours."
This week at The Commonwealth Club of California:
- Paranoid Politics: Islamophobia, McCarthyism, and the Yellow Peril, Silicon Valley, 7:00 PM
- The Island President Screening and Discussion, San Francisco, 7:10 PM
- Humanities West Book Discussion: Pompeii and Herculaneum, San Francisco, 5:30 PM
- Robert Shiller: Finance and the Good Society (SOLD OUT EVENT), San Francisco, 6:00 PM
- Guy Gugliotta: Freedom's Cap: The United States Capitol and the Coming of the Civil War, San Francisco, 6:00 PM
- Jonah Lehrer: How Creativity Works, Silicon Valley, 7:00 PM
- Dr. Joseph B. Martin: Where Have all the Doctors Gone?, San Francisco, 12:00 PM
For all event details, updates, and ticket reservations: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/
By Greg Dalton
General Motors has decided to discontinue funding of the Heartland Institute, an organization that downplays the risks of climate disruption, three weeks after GM Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson was asked about it during a Climate One radio interview. GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss confirmed the move yesterday.
Hours before Mr. Akerson went on stage March 7th at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco to record the interview before a live audience of about 200 people, several questions were submitted via Facebook about GM’s financial support of the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based group that advocates free market ideas. Climate One is the sustainability project of The Commonwealth Club of California, a non-profit and non-partisan public forum.
This question was posted from Bruce:
“Please ask Mr. Akerson why GM funds the Heartland Institute, a group that has tried to push misinformation about climate change into our public schools. Is this funding consistent with their company’s message in marketing of the Chevy Volt?”
That sounded fair game. So during the hour-long conversation I posed that question to Mr. Akerson. His response made it clear he accepts the scientific consensus that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other pollutants are increasing the Earth’s average temperatures.
“The first time I was interviewed by the press, I was stunned with the following reaction,” Akerson said. “Some guy says, 'Do you believe in global warming?' And I said, 'Well yeah, I do.' Several GM executives said, 'You don’t say that in public. Well this may surprise you, my underwear doesn’t have GM stamped on it and I am an individual and I do have my own convictions and it may sometimes they -- they agree and sometimes they don’t. I think it’s actually healthy to have different points of view and perspectives around the table.”
He went on to address the funding question more directly. “This is $15,000 that was committed to before I came in. I also think the Heartland Institute, I’m told, does other things and I find this interesting. I won’t go any further but I’m going to take another look at it when I get back to Detroit. I’ll leave it at that.” Disclosure: General Motors is also a corporate funder of Climate One.
Mr. Akerson said “actions speak louder than words” and mentioned zero-emission auto plants that run off methane and other measures the company has taken to reduce its carbon footprint. Of course, most of the pollution from automobiles comes from driving them around, not making them. That’s on us consumers.
GM famously killed the electric car ten years ago and often obstructed efforts to combat severe climate change. Now, that is changing. GM is producing the Chevy Volt, which runs on electricity and gasoline, and consumers have more options than ever for moving away from oil. GM can still do a lot more with its money and muscle to advance the transition to clean transportation. And my bet is they will, because the free and global auto market is headed toward an electrified future.
This week at The Commonwealth Club of California:
Esther Koch: What You Need to Know Before You're 65 – A Medicare Primer
Middle East Discussion Group
Climate One: Speaking Youth to Power
John D. Kuhns: China Fortunes - An American Pioneer's Adventures in China's Energy Trade
The Film Olive
Distilled in SF: How to Drink Like a Locavore
Climate One: Water World
Chinatown Walking Tour
Move Your Money!
Jake Godby and Sean Vahey: Ice Cream Social with an Attitude
Dr. Ira Byock: The Best Care Possible- What It Is and How to Get It
Week to Week News Commentary Program
Need, Speed, and Greed: The New Rules of Innovation
For details and to reserve tickets: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/