Khan Academy: The self-paced lecture

In my entire career as a high school teacher there were just a few times when I could walk out of a classroom after delivering a lecture and think to myself "That was good, I did a good job of explaining those concepts and I think I covered all the bases." On those days, I would think: "wouldn't it be great if I could have filmed that lecture or discussion and repeat it again for my other classes or in future years?" More often after class I was self-critical, I knew I had failed to mention this thing or that, but I also knew I would see them again and bring it up then, if they were all there.
A much worse feeling was knowing that some of the students did not understand my talk even though I thought I had done such a fine job. That can be the worst, most frustrating part of teaching. Even if you ask a group whether they understand, few in the group will have the courage to say no and waste everyones time. That is one problem with one-size-fits-all teaching.
Salman Khan wants to use video to reinvent education. He might already have done that. Years ago in my former school board, there was a concept kicked around called "mastery learning." Basically students don't proceed until they have mastered a particular objective. So imagine a student airline pilot who only gets 75% of his/her landings correct. Though thats not bad, you would not want that person to become a pilot, not yet anyway. The problem with mastery learning is that it does not fit the model on which most school systems function, and since there is little competition among school systems because they are largely government institutions, well, you see what I mean. Students are left with gaps in their education, not able to master some things because of time or some other constraint. Salman Khan has helped flip the eduction system around. Using hundreds (2100 so far) of YouTube videos to teach basic concepts, Khan has allowed students to master by repetition (YouTube is very patient) particular lessons so that they may proceed to the next level fully prepared. Teachers can then use one-to-one contact to help the stragglers. Does it work? Well, have a look the TED video below and he will explain it, then visit the KhanAcademy here.    

  

Revolution, democracy, education and gas pains

Ed meets Fidel

About a month ago I posted a comment on the Egyptian Revolution. It was about democracy and the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood would be involved in a future Egyptian government. Well, that revolution, or should I say coup d'état, seems to have subsided, Mubarak is out, and the Army is still in control as it always had been, no need to worry about the Brotherhood there, not yet anyway. George Jonas commented on that last week in a column Intoxicated by Revolution, where he gets closer to the truth of what is going on in the current Middle Eastern unrest. Jonas points out that Americans in particular are in love with revolution because their own country was born that way. The American and Canadian media got very excited about the Egyptian "peoples revolt" and their demand for freedom and democracy even though those terms have a different meaning for the Egyptians.

I'm old enough to remember a revolution that got North Americans excited more than half a century ago. The picture shows Ed Sullivan, lord of Sunday night television back when I was a kid (in 1959), speaking to a 32-year-old Fidel Castro about his "liberation of Cuba." Some liberation, opinions on that revolution changed soon after that interview was aired.

Mr. Jonas' column discusses democracy as being a goal of the Mid-East unrest. He points out that democracy is really just a "method of succession or power-transfer." In North America we view democracy as a synonym "for individual liberty, fundamental human rights, private enterprise, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, freedom of expression - in short, for the sum of the best ideals of Western-style societies." That is just our bias and it has never been true. Jonas continues that: "'Democracy' denotes a system in which governments succeed each other by being elected, usually for a fixed term, by a majority of qualified voters. That's all. Rule by majority mandate says nothing, in itself, about the kind of society such an impeccable mandate is going to rule." Jonas also adds that it is very unlikely for democracy to come from this current unrest "it's more likely for wealth, justice and liberty to bring people democracy," like has occurred in the West. In other words there is virtually no chance that we can expect democratic states, as we think of them in North America, to arise in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, or Libya. So what is going on there?

Two things are happening and both are related to the way government distorts the marketplace.

In both Tunisia and Egypt a post-secondary education is "free," even though the market for graduates is extremely limited. Tunisia particularly has 57% of its young people entering the labour market with a college degree, compared to the US situation with less than one-third of its young people in that situation. An education bubble fuelled by government policy has created unemployment and underemployment in both Tunisia and Egypt. The value of an education to an individual can only be determined by the price that an employer would pay to employ that individual. If the educated individual is unemployable, than of what value was the education received? That is the distortion created by these governments. Countries with groups of educated unemployables, subjugated by dictators like Gaddafi in Libya,  together with power of the internet, has created a volatile mixture. 

For us in the West the unrest across North Africa has distorted the oil market in southern Europe and as a result everywhere oil is used, "a pain in the gas." A prolonged civil war in Libya threatens to involve the armed forces of NATO and beyond, because it endangers Libyan civilians (no fly zone) and the oil infrastructure of Libya. We are all paying more for gasoline today because the market demands it. Interesting how one government distortion far away can lead to your wallet.         

    

OSCAR robbery and bad medicine

They were robbed. Thats right, the Oscar for Best Picture at the 83rd Annual Academy Awards should have gone to The Social Network. Instead The King's Speech, another very good movie won. The Fighter was also a very good movie, and I'm sure Inception (did not yet see) was as well. My problem is I really don't have much respect for the monarchy or monarchists in general.
Yes, the The King's Speech was about overcoming stuttering, a real problem (especially for a King), and certainly I was sympathetic and even moved by the acting.....I get it. Maybe Colin Firth even deserved Best Actor, but a movie that portrayed how an elitist overcame a problem so that he could fulfil the job which he received by right of inherited entitlement, well, I have a problem with glorifying and celebrating that. So I'm prejudiced against arbitrary rule. What else is new?

The Social Network is a different kind of movie and I remember after watching it that the writing (adapted screenplay) was wonderful, and so was the editing, and each of the actors together did a fabulous and convincing job. It was amazing to me that such a great movie was made about what could be a very dry topic.
A column in the National Post last week said it best for me. Shaun Francis wrote this before Oscar night: "The Facebook story proves that a great idea, combined with good timing and an evangelical founder, can flourish in a system that allows it to quickly attract money, resources and talent. That system is, of course, the free market, capitalist, forprofit economy." He continues by adding: "...I am most struck by what was not part of the Facebook story: government. The Social Network doesn't include a cast credit for "faceless bureaucrat." Nor did the screenplay include any lines about statesponsored venture funds. No science and research tax credits. No federal regulations stipulating who could own Zuckerberg's company, or specifying the language or disclaimers for his home page." Mr. Francis continues by speculating about what would have happened if government were involved (disaster) in creating Facebook and then compares it to the Canadian and Ontario government's "bungled attempts to create electronic medical records."
Mr. Francis adds: "Mainstream political parties and academics claim for-profit medicine will make health care more expensive. Yet despite governments spending bigger and bigger budgets on health care, wait times lengthen and services are delisted. Clearly, taxpayers are not getting value for their money in our monopoly-payer system." 

Facebook has 500-million voluntary users, produces scads of money, and has absolutely nothing to do with government. Mr. Francis concludes that the film The Social Network: "teaches us to value the individual and the free market as agents of change. It proves it's possible to transform the world without a tax credit. It shows that you can make money and make a difference.
"I'm from the government," the man says. "And I'm here to help." When we hear those words, The Social Network suggests we should run in the opposite direction." Absolutely right!

Bringing people to the light

Why is capitalism portrayed as evil by many artists? Because its easy to suspend thought, much easier than thinking. Here are a couple of interesting views: