Childhood Dreams

“Remember brick walls let us show our dedication. They are there to separate us from the people who don’t really want to achieve their childhood dreams.”

Randy Pausch was a professor at Carnegie Melon University. A few years ago he was diagnosed with terminal liver cancer and told he had three to six months to live. Over those months, there was much he had to do, including his famous Last Lecture. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s by far the most inspiring lecture I have ever heard and something I would recommend to everyone. There aren’t too many people who have to courage to face imminent death and do what he did, and he does it perfectly. I’m not going to go into his lecture, but I want to build on his main topic: childhood dreams.

When I was a kid, I loved to build things. I don’t know why I’m using the past tense—I still do—but I’ll get back to that later. For birthdays I would get huge K’nex sets and excitedly spent hours in my room building roller coasters and five-foot towers. My parents were probably worried their kid seemed to be on path to become a construction worker, but I loved (and still love) putting things together.

After watching “Titanic,” I spent a week putting together a model of the ship and hooking up a motor so it would actually move. I’d love to imagine navigating something that enormous, since when this happened around fifth grade, I really wanted to be a pilot.

Probably sometime in late middle school I decided a pilot’s lifestyle is not exactly feasible and probably not what I could do best. I shifted away from it. (But as I’m writing this right now, I still think it’d be really cool to pilot a 747.) So I shifted more toward entrepreneurship, and my new dream became something along the lines of, “I really want to make my own company and have it succeed.” Most of us grew up in the dot-com bubble, and some of the biggest companies of the day—like Google and Amazon—became what they are after starting up in garages. And that’s what I dreamed of doing, too.

There are a few patterns in the evolution of my childhood dreams. For one, I think they became more “practical,” at least in how we view it in society. I started out with a passion for building things and dreaming of becoming a construction worker—not exactly the most glamorous thing. I grew to want to be a pilot, which is more reasonable but still a bit out there. And today, I think I’m in a pretty large group of hopeful entrepreneurs.

Some might view that pattern of evolution as a good thing. I don’t. Childhood dreams are lofty, frequently unrealistic and difficult to achieve; they’re dreams. But that’s what makes childhood dreams great. The pattern I’ve noticed is dreams are so often reduced from idealistic hopes to watered down remnants that fit well within society.

I said earlier I still love to build things. The problem is there just isn’t the time. And I’d love to fly a 747, but there’s a huge sacrifice I would have to make to do that. I would essentially have to give up a lot of career options to focus on flying. And I still want to start up a business as much as I ever have. But where’s the time?

That’s the problem. It’s not that the childhood dreams go away, it’s that our time starts running out, and childhood dreams are often too risky to pursue.

So many of us will back out. We’ll give up on something we really wanted so we can do something safer, more secure and more certain.

If you told me the first business I start up will be successful, I would leave school and commit all my time to that. But I can’t get that guarantee, so it’s not that simple. I can’t just say, “Screw school, I’m going to move to California and hope my idea works!” I’ll try to do the best I can and still keep up in school, but again time is always an issue. Schoolwork, extracurriculars and such take up a lot of time. At the end of the day, there isn’t always enough left over to work on your childhood dreams.

This is when I think about Pauch’s quote. Growing up, time and reality—all of those could be seen as brick walls to childhood dreams. And to be fair, a lot of people will accomplish their childhood dreams of wanting to be a doctor or engineer or economist. But for those who don’t have dreams that fit in so nicely with the college curriculum and life style, there are a lot of obstacles. And when that happens, it’s easy to lose focus.

So what I really want to say is, don’t lose that focus. And that’s not some preachy statement because it applies to me just as much. College is a great place and a fantastic experience, but if you come out of it having lost the childhood dreams that initially were sources of motivation—I don’t know if I can call that a good four years.

College isn’t worth the sacrifice of losing childhood dreams, and childhood dreams often don’t get the respect they deserve. Some of the adults I admire the most are the ones who still have the childish ideology, that mentality of, “I don’t care if it’s difficult or unrealistic. I’m going to do it.”

Childhood dreams are what really make us who we are. They’re the things that give us uniqueness and show what we really want to do. And they’re things that are too often lost at the expense of a more standard, typical reality. It’s great to grow up and learn more—I truly don’t see myself as a construction worker anymore—but growing up doesn’t have come at the cost of losing who we really are.

Who actually reads this?

It’s an honest question, not some whiny rant, because I’ve been surprised lately.

When I first started this blog, I really had no expectations. My best friend blogged and suggested to me, he bought me my domain name, even installed the wordpress software for me (so if you don’t like the layout it’s his fault), so I really just had to write. And I did, though not as frequently as I thought (it’s surprisingly hard for me to write regularly).

If I had to classify this blog as something, it would be a public diary. That’s an oxymoron right? And obviously what I write isn’t the most absolute personal thing in my life - I don’t ever plan for this to become some place where I recap my day and talk about what I ate, who I like, who I’m annoyed with, etc. But it’s a diary in the sense that I write the thoughts in my mind (not random one sentence thoughts). There’s no way to quantify this, but I feel that I think a lot. And they aren’t necessarily brilliant ground breaking thoughts, but one of my favorite parts of the day is walking between classes. And that’s because the walks between classes are times when I can just put on my headphones and think - no conversations, no lectures, no work, just flat out thinking.

But this “diary” is online, so it’s undoubtedly public, and that’s by choice. But it’s not as public as facebook, or talking about these things head-on in conversation, and that was always appealing to me. Not because I don’t want to have those personal conversations, but because I like the feeling of being able to write whatever I want to write and throwing it out there. I don’t want to parade what I think to everyone in the world, but I like having it out there for people (some which I probably don’t even know) to see, agree, disagree, whatever. Honestly I didn’t think many read it other than a handful of close friends, 3-5 at most.

So that’s why it’s so interesting for me when I hear that people actually have read it, and continue to read it. Even if it’s not meant as flattery, I somewhat take it as that - because to me it means that a person actually thought it worth his/her time to read what I have to say. At first I thought having more people read my blog would ruin the relative anonymity I get from posting on it. But it doesn’t, it actually makes me want to write more. I don’t care who reads this, but it means a lot to me when people I actually know do read it.

An hour ago I saw that a friend on campus actually went back about 10 posts to comment on something I’d written a long time ago - I would have never seen that coming. I apologize if this post kind of seems poorly constructed or without a point; it’s definitely stream of consciousness. But really I want to thank anyone who does read this, and voice my appreciation. I’ll admit most of the comments I get are spam, but it feels great to get one that has thought and effort behind it. And it’s really cool to have someone mention something I blogged about in conversation,, it’s not something that I wouldn’t have predicted when I first started this thing.

I have to start working on a more focussed post now that’ll hopefully be up in a day, but thanks again to anyone who reads this.

Deliberation

This time of year, near the end of Winter Quarter, is usually one of transition. Dorms, fraternities and sororities, student groups and even ASG will soon enough elect the new faces of their organizations for the coming year. Some of these elections just have one popular vote, but usually that’s not the case.

In most elections there are the statements by candidates, followed by a question-and-answer session, leading to deliberation without the candidates, which is then finally concluded by a vote. Opening statements and questioning are pretty standard, but the deliberation is a fascinating process.

Going into deliberation, there’s an interesting mix of opinions. Some people have their minds made up strongly for certain candidates, usually through some previous connection. Others just really dislike certain candidates for similar reasons. And many walk into deliberation with undecided minds, eager to hear what others have to say in hopes of coming to a decision.

And the game is on. Different factions of polarized support will advocate or criticize candidates, struggling to win over the mass of undecided voters. It’s all about strategy. You don’t want to come off as too strong, or you might turn voters off. But if you see the tide going against your preference, you’re going to speak up. And when things are going your way, it’s best to keep quiet, because you want to conserve your persuasive capital. Sure, everyone can have an opinion, but when it’s one person speaking over and over again, the effect tends to be lost.

And even going into deliberation, everyone has different levels of persuasive capital. Some are highly respected, and their word goes far. Others are seen as the slacker goofballs who don’t really carry any weight. It all comes together in deliberation, and it’s so interesting to see all the different agendas and strategies play out.

And I’m genuinely intrigued by this. It’s a heated psychological battle that takes persuasive skills and good perception. But deliberation can be a dirty, underhanded and completely unjust way to choose a candidate. I understand why it can help to discuss a candidate, but there are too many negatives for me to support it.

The main problem with deliberation is candidates can’t defend themselves. The idea of knowingly talking about a person without giving them a chance to defend certain criticisms just sounds inherently unfair. Obviously all candidates have certain problems, but ask them directly about them. Use the question-and-answer session to really ask the meaningful questions you’re wondering about. That’s better than basing your decision of something said in deliberation that might very likely be guided by an ulterior motive.

In theory deliberation sounds like a good thing, but it really isn’t in practice. I’ve sat through quite a few deliberation sessions over the past few weeks, and in each one, I’ve thought the same thing: “Shouldn’t I come to this decision on my own? Should I listen to some of the incredibly polarized things being said right now, when I don’t even know the person for myself?” Even when I say things in deliberation, I question why what I say should have any sway over someone else’s vote.

It’s your vote. Do everything you can to find out the information you need. Listen to the statements, judge past actions, ask good questions and think through the options. But why go through an indirect, potentially biased source to find out what you want to do? That’s not fair to the candidate or the voter.

Residential Colleges vs. Frats

This post might be unclear for anyone not fro Northwestern, but a residential college is a dorm with much more programming and faculty involvement. More information can be found here: http://www.northwestern.edu/residentialcolleges/

—

So many incoming freshmen, when going through the housing application, come across the term “residential college” and wonder what that even means. And let’s be honest here. Often, maybe after a little bit of research, the res college system is cast off as something for “losers” or “nerds.”

I apologize if I’m offending anybody, and I should say I’m involved with my res college and love the experience. I don’t think res colleges are lame, but I know they get that rep.

At the same time, think about the Greek system: that part of campus where every social event seems to happen. Frat guys being frat guys, it’s a getaway from the academic atmosphere that takes up the days. For those people who unwillingly got placed into res colleges, frats and sororities are the perfect escape. No more of this “academic” theme and these “anti-social” people. Frats and sororities are a gateway for freedom, for socially outgoing friends, for something more than academics. Right?

The thing is, I’m in a fraternity too, and I feel the two institutions are eerily similar. First of all, the people who live in res colleges are not that fundamentally different than Greek students. Both groups are Northwestern students and inevitably care about academics. And both groups are social; they probably meet at the same parties. But more than that, the basic institutions share so much in common. The exec board of my res college meets every week for about an hour to talk about events we’re planning and what we can do to make the experience better. Similarly, every Sunday, I walk up north to attend my fraternity’s chapter.

We even talk about the same things. Both institutions have academic chairs, social chairs, philanthropy chairs, treasurers, secretaries, etc. A fraternity is much more than just drinking and partying, and that’s obvious in chapter. Similarly, a residential college is about much more than firesides and academics—it is a social experience, too. It’s funny because some people might think they’re “escaping” the residential college lifestyle by living in a Greek house, but they’re not so far apart.

True, there are some things that are obviously different. Frats don’t have CAs; res colleges do. Frats also don’t have a cleaning staff working every day; res colleges do. I’m not trying to say the experience is identical. But the general conception that res colleges and the Greek system are so opposite doesn’t have much merit.

When it comes to philanthropic endeavors, why Haiti?

The conditions in Haiti are terrible. Death toll estimates range between 50,000 and 200,000, and as many as 3 million Haitians—a third of the population—are said to have been affected. Buildings and entire complexes have been reduced to rubble, and there are powerful images of the devastated Presidential Palace at Port-au-Prince in shambles.

You probably already knew all this, if not more. And you probably know millions upon millions of dollars in aid have been pouring into the relief fund for this terrible disaster. Half of my Facebook friends have Haiti-dedicated profile pictures, and there seems to be a new event regarding the earthquake almost daily. And it’s not just here at Northwestern, because the worldwide response has been incredible.

I hope I’ve established my sympathy to Haitians and the current cause, because it is very sincere. That said, I don’t want to sound like an insensitive ignorant idiot when I bring up the point of this post: Why Haiti? Why has Haiti become the poster child for the hundreds of legitimate causes in desperate need of funding?

Why are so many people picking up their phones and texting “Haiti” to 90999, but no one seems to be giving a cent toward the terrible situation in Darfur? Genocide and violence have displaced 2.7 million people within the country who need protection, according to the Save Darfur Coalition.

Or what about the millions who live in slums in India? “Slumdog Millionaire” might have been a moving film, but the horrors it depicts aren’t fiction. Two million children die each year in the impoverished enclaves of this country with a poverty rate of 38 percent—nearly triple our own rate here in the U.S.

Or even in our own towns: the homeless and hungry who don’t know if they’ll have enough to survive next week?

It’s almost as if giving money to Haiti is the sexy thing to do. It’s the latest fad. Like Livestrong bracelets in the past, it’s become almost a society-wide push now. Maybe it’s the celebrity patronage, maybe it’s the outrageous comments made by Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. The Haiti text messaging drive was making $200,000 an hour after it was released, announced the mGive Foundation, a co-sponsor of the initiative—that kind of generosity doesn’t happen every day. This is all great for Haiti, and the poor nation is truly in need. But the way this disaster has emerged to the forefront of worldwide attention makes it seem like the earthquake in Haiti is the only thing wrong in this world.

Sincere philanthropy should be a constant occurrence, not just the consequence of a mob-like mentality. Support Haiti, but don’t do it because it’s “in” and trendy. And more than that, don’t fall under the delusion that Haitians are the only ones experiencing hardships in this world. After the Haiti disaster is under control, my biggest fear is this sudden emergence of generosity will once again disappear into the shadows.

The heartwarming generosity brings with it a somber reminder. The media and public perception usually picks the winners and losers when it comes to worthwhile causes, but the world’s problems don’t begin or end with Haiti—and our philanthropic endeavors shouldn’t either.

We need more people like Steve Jobs

In roughly one week, Apple Inc. will unveil a new product at their company event. Invites that have been going out recently carry the teaser “Come see our latest creation.” Of course, if you’ve been following the tech world recently, you probably know that this latest creation will be Apple’s first tablet computer. Termed the “iSlate” by followers, this device promises to be truly revolutionary. The device will boast a 10” OLED touch screen display (approximately) that will function as a full service computer with revolutionary gesture sensing touch technology.[1] It’s also rumored to cost upwards of $600 dollars, potentially even $1000. So are you going to buy it? Probably not, right? But that’s also what people said about the iPhone, and the iPhone is now the most popular phone in America[2]. I remember when I first saw the iPhone. I had heard about it, and had wanted one, but didn’t seriously think I would buy one for the price of $600. But then I went to the Apple store, and it was unlike anything I had ever seen before. 20 minutes later, I was walking out with a small Apple bag. When you think about it, Apple has been doing this for years. Companies like Microsoft and Google are very capable companies, but neither match Apple’s leadership in the consumer electronics sector. And that’s because of one man: Steve Jobs.

Job’s leadership is notorious in Silicon Valley. He’s a brilliant guy, but he’s described as one of the hardest bosses around. Known for firing people if they bring anything less than the best, Job’s desire for perfection is well documented. If you disagree with him, you might get fired. If he’s having a bad day and you piss him off, you might even get fired for that. Despite all that, I think he’s one of the best CEOs in the world, and that we need more people like him. Innovation doesn’t come from lax mediocrity. Weak, lenient personalities aren’t going to bring groundbreaking products. Things like the iPhone aren’t created by workers seeking a ho-hum, eyebrow raising product. The jaw dropping, speechless reactions the iPhone gathered came because a strong-willed CEO was willing to settle for something average. There was nothing like the iPhone when it came out, most of the world was still on the RAZR. Do you see RAZRs anymore?

I really don’t think I’m going to buy the iSlate. A net book is far cheaper and probably closer to what I’m looking for. But because of Steve Jobs, I haven’t bought that net book yet. I don’t know how good his “latest creation” is going to be, but I know enough about Steve Jobs to wait.

When he was trying to get PepsiCo’s John Sculley to join Apple, Jobs said, “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?”[3] That’s what Steve Jobs does. He might be nearly impossible to work for, and he might be one of the craziest CEO’s out there. But he creates things the whole world wants, and we need more people like that.

Why I’m Undecided

I’m writing blog posts for the DailyNorthwestern weekly now, so I’m just going to cross post those on here too. At least this way there will be more regular content!

—

Declaring your major seems like the kind of thing you would decide for yourself, but as an undeclared major leaning toward economics, I’ve found it’s a choice that was made for me. It was easy in high school when I wasn’t alone in being undecided. And I always went with the assumption that it would just all click for me in college. Somehow, after taking a class at Northwestern and meeting new people, I thought I would have a much better idea of what I want to do. But it didn’t quite work out the way. There was no freshman Fall Quarter epiphany. Instead, a year later, I’m muddling my way through courses as though I’m an econ major.

In my first year, by choosing not to take certain classes, the pruning began. I wasn’t taking a science class—there goes the pre-med route. No art history or philosophy—so those options slowing started dying too. And I didn’t take any McCormick classes, so there goes engineering. I’m not trying to sound like some pocket protector-wearing, calculator-carrying academic enthusiast who wants to exhaust NU’s entire course catalog—I don’t. And yeah, I know if I really wanted to I could start taking Engineering Analysis or organic chemistry and go down a different track, but I don’t want to be an undergrad until I’m 30 either.

Honestly, I don’t think I want to go into any of the fields I mentioned above, nothing against those paths. The problem is, I didn’t actively make that choice. I never said, “I don’t want to be a mechanical engineer,” or, “I don’t want to be a doctor.” By taking the courses I did, the decision was passively made for me.

The econ courses I have taken, ironically, taught me the options I’m forgoing make up the opportunity cost. And that’s the hardest thing for me: coming to terms with that opportunity cost. College is an incredible place, and the opportunity is unbelievable. But as soon as we step onto campus, that opportunity starts diminishing. Not because it stops existing, but because one person cannot possibly take advantage of all of it—or even a significant portion.

In the end, I’m sure I’ll declare an econ major, I’ll work through those classes and maybe I’ll even pick up another minor along the way. But when I declare my major, in some sense it will mark me as officially accepting that opportunity cost. It’ll mark my acceptance that there are some options I’m closing off for good. I’m not ready for those constraints yet, even if the process has been tacitly ongoing for months.

I applaud those who know what they want to do and where they want to go, but I really sympathize with students who aren’t quite ready to make that limiting declaration. It’s really difficult to commit to a major that you aren’t even certain about. It’s an important decision and not one that should be made halfheartedly. But today, one-third of the way through my collegiate career, I still haven’t had that epiphany—that moment when I’m perfectly certain about what I want to do. Hopefully I won’t have to wait as long as the Cubs, but I’m going to stay undecided until I have that moment… at least until some deadline makes that decision for me.

“The one thing they love more than a hero is to see a hero fail”

Yeah I just quoted the Green Goblin. I’m not writing about Spiderman of course, and with how much exposure the story is getting, it’s probably obvious that I’m going to write about Tiger Woods. When I first heard this quote at the movie theatre, it struck me as brilliantly insightful and fitting for the movie - but I sincerely hoped that it was fitting only for the movie.

But of course it applies to the real world, one would be naive to think it doesn’t. Think about Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, Rob Blagojevic, Elliot Spitzer, Kobe, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Vick - I could go on and it’s sad that I could. But whatever the frequency of fallibility in high profile figures says about their character is minuscule compared to what the reaction of the public says about the state of society.

When I first read Tiger’s most recent statement earlier today, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that one of the people I highly admire might have fell from his pedestal, and I questioned how much the character of high profile figures can really be trusted. But what really disappointed me is the whole process, the whole media circus - frankly this is none of our business. Consider how this started - with a single car traffic accident. This everyday occurrence resulted in a $164 dollar fine and four points on Tiger’s driving record. Sure it’snot expected, but it’s not like it’s never happened before. But of course, we aren’t just talking about anyone, we’re talking about Tiger Woods. So instead of sympathizing with Tiger’s minor injuries - as one would in a normal accident - the invasive media obsessed with the situation itself. Why was Tiger out in the middle of the night? Why were his windows smashed? Was he fighting with Elin? Did Elin attack him? Is Tiger cheating on Elin? The absurdity of this just boggles me. It’s 2, Tiger could have been jet-lagged, he could have been hungry for a midnight snack, or maybe he just wanted to go for a drive. In fact, maybe he and Elin did have a fight, like any normal couple, and he wanted some personal space. Again, these things are not expected, but it’s not like they’ve never happened before. The presumptuous media has absolutely no right to conduct “investigative” journalism on this fairly typical matter. They have no right to publish “malicious rumors” and expose an athlete’s personal life to the public microscope - I am 100% behind Tiger in his first statement. As Tiger said, it was a personal issue, and he is completely entitled to keep it that way. I’ve read recent garbage (I’ll water down the word I really want to use) saying that we are “entitled” to know the details of the situation, and “Tiger owes us an explanation.” Okay I’m just going to say it, that’s complete bullshit. If I’m having relationship problems or craving a burger, that’s my business and not the publics - I don’t expect Tiger to tell me what he ate for dinner or how is marriage is going. Anyone who reasons that Tiger, because he is a high profile figure, owes us an explanation is flat out wrong. I can understand the argument that elected officials are accountable to their constituents, but this is completely different. Tiger is an incredibly gifted athlete who has won numerous tournaments though his own talent. The public didn’t elect Tiger to his success nor did he ask us for it - he earned it. Tiger’s accountability to sponsors is a slightly different issues, they pay him good money to represent them. I am more sympathetic to a corporate sponsor requesting an explanation - because they are directly linked to Tiger (or at least his image). And if the sponsor so chooses, they can drop their contract with Tiger and move on; nothing is stopping them. But for the average consumer, don’t claim that because you buy Gatorade Tiger, the man owes you an explanation. If that’s your logic, you should stop buying Gatorade Tiger.

The sad thing is, because it seems that there is more to the Tiger story than a simple crash, the media is going to win. We do not know what will come out the next few days, but it may very well be that Tiger had one or multiple mistresses during his marriage. I don’t condone that, and it is going to make me look at Tiger differently; I don’t think Tiger is impervious to all fault. But it is awful that, with these allegations, the crimes of the media will be overlooked. Maybe Tiger isn’t perfect, I can accept that. But I can’t accept the endless extremes the media will go to expose such stories. Depending on what comes out in the next few days, Tiger might lose some of my respect. But equally, if not more so, he will gain my pity and sympathy - he doesn’t deserve this invasion on his personal life.

Perhaps lost in what I wrote above (it’s been bugging me for a while, I apologize if it became a borderline rant) is what “Tiger-gate” says about society, and why I titled this post with the GG quote.

Frankly, he’s right.

Society has come to a point where it will go from worshiping idols to ripping them apart in a matter or seconds. Forget that we all loved Tiger and root for him every Sunday. Forget that when he’s not playing in a tournament, that tournament might as well cease to exist. Forget that he has his own charitable foundation which is regularly active. And forget that many kids grow up hoping to become like Tiger - often with parental encouragement. Let’s forget all that, and instead now let this transgression ruin everything Tiger ever stood for. Sounds kind of stupid (at least to me), but it’s what’s happening and might continue to happen depending on how events unfold. I can understand curiosity, it’s something I’m guilty of myself. Yes part of me is curious to know what exactly happened here, part of me is curious to know if Tiger cheated. But the obsession society has on scandals like this transcends typical curiosity - this is malicious invasion. Society isn’t just curious to see if Tiger cheated, many want Tiger to have cheated. Many want to see Tiger do wrong. Why? Because it shows that this extraordinary person is still human. Because it shows, despite earning over 1 billion dollars now, that this man is still capable of wrong. Because it shows that he isn’t so great after all; in fact, we might even be better than him.

This sick, twisted notion of reveling in one’s demise sickens me. We shouldn’t have to see our heroes fall to lift us up. It’s one thing to admire a person’s accomplishment, but it’s quite another to think that he or she is perfect and capable of no wrong. And that’s our fault, we shouldn’t have built Tiger up to be some perfect man - because no one is. It should not take an extra-marital affair for society to realize that Tiger isn’t perfect. More than that, fans shouldn’t take away some guilty pleasure from seeing Tiger fall. I don’t mean to say I am above society (I’m not) when I say that this whole Tiger incident has not given me that guilty pleasure. And I don’t think I’m alone, I think many are genuinely sad - but too many are happy. Feel pity for Elin and Tiger for having to deal with this under the scrutinizing public eye. Feel sorrow for their children, who might be too young to realize the happenings right now but will surely be exposed to it later in life. But don’t feel satisfaction in seeing a hero, one that you once loved, fall.

America’s Comeptitive Advantage Part 2

So in the last part, I ended with the point Friedman has already made: Imagination is America’s competitive advantage. Before I move, I just want to clarify that by imagination, I essentially mean innovation. Innovation in how we use energy, make calls, transport ourselves, etc.

What exactly does this mean? To paraphrase Friedman again, his point was essentially that the doomsday sayers are not 100% accurate. Yes, it is becoming ever more inevitable that China will join the US in the ranks of world superpowers, if it hasn’t done so already. But, unlike what many are saying, this does not necessarily mean that China will replace the United States. America has, and certainly can continue to be, the hub of creative thinking where great ideas are born. There’s a reason technology entrepreneurs congregate around Silicon Valley, and there’s a reason why so many world class scientists come to American institutes to conduct their research. There’s a a reason the overwhelming majority of major international companies were started in America. And it’s simple, the American lifestyle and culture inspires creativity and encourages everyone to go out and do their own thing. Or at least it did.

This is what really got to be when I heard the professor speak a couple weeks back, how America might be losing the competitive advantage it has had for over two centuries. The problem itself is an ironic paradox. With the increase of higher education and graduate school education, America is arguable diminishing its age old atmosphere of creativity. Higher education is good for many things. For one, those with a college degree on average well over a million dollars more over their lifetime to non-degree laborers. Coupled with masters degrees or other graduate/specialty degrees, a college education allowed people to go on and become doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, and other highly respected and well paying careers.

However, there’s a glaring omission on this list: entrepreneurs. This is certainly an arguable topic, but I don’t think entrepreneurship is something that can be taught in the class room. If you are a hopeful future entrepreneur, but go to full time college like most others - you really aren’t sure if the whole entrepreneur thing is going to work out. You don’t know if you’ll just be able to go out there and start some revolutionary company that has a billion dollar IPO, you don’t know if you’ll make the next Microsoft or the next Google. Honestly, if you want to be an entrepreneur but are in college, you probably don’t even know if you can create a small company that just makes ends meet. And because of this uncertainty, you come to college; a degree provides a fall back that still generally assures a good life. I know this, becase I think I fall in this category. If I knew today that I could quit college to start my own company and be set for life, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I don’t, and college is a sense of insurance that will allow me to still fulfill some of my lifelong dreams.

This is where the problem is. By using college as a safeguard, that entrepreneurial spirit is often killed. While one might have gone into college with dreams of creating his own company, 4 years later he’s out there doing interviews looking to work for a firm. College is great for so many things, but not entrepreneurship. College doesn’t teach you how to run a company, how to get venture capital, or many of the other skills needed to innovate. College, rather, largely teaches students higher level skills that allow them to get professional, well-paying jobs. College doesn’t teach one to risk everything they have to create something that could be great, it teaches one to learn, rehearse, and prepare for a relatively static and traveled path in life. I’m not saying college is an all together bad thing; much of our recent economic growth is due to higher level education. But when it comes to entrepreneurship, college needs reforming.

And this is how Friedman ultimately ended his speech, with a call to reform education. Today’s schools are so fantastic if you want to become a doctor, an engineer, an economist, etc - all of which are respectable fields. But when it comes to creating entrepreneurs - what has always been America’s competitive advantage - higher education is woefully lacking. Colleges need to focus more on teaching emerging adults how to innovate and implement, not just learn and follow. Colleges need to encourage and support those who are willing to take a shot and inventing the next big thing. Colleges need to be a nurturing ground for regular ingenuity, not simply repeated adequacy.

Personally, I don’t think college has really helped me further my entrepreneurial goals. I think mine are still alive and entirely possible, but I can’t deny that college has made me think long and hard about setting into a more certain career path. That’s what I think the problem is. College right now is good if you have a set path that you are going to follow and fulfill, but if you’re unsure and are really an entrepreneur at heart - it can be tough. There are so many things here that kill the entrepreneurial spirit and make you think of where your career is “really” going to go in a few years. And that’s a shame, because in these tough economic times, America desperately needs its innovators.

Random Rant

Okay so this isn’t the second part to the last post, I still plan on doing that, this is just a random rant.

This just happened a few minutes ago, and I’m not quite sure what to take from it. I’m president of my dorm, and I asked a member of the exec board how she was doing with an upcoming event. As a little back story, registration for this event is on Tuesday, and she just sent out an email regarding the event yesterday. Quite frankly, that email should have gone out at least two weeks ago, if not earlier. And, more annoyingly, that email should have gone out without me having to nag her at least 15 times to send it out. Yeah I know that sounds like an exaggeration, it’s not. This exec member’s primary responsibility is to see that this event is successful, and right now not only am I disappointed by her effort, I’m afraid as to what will happen. I’ve been taking a more active role to put some safeguard in case this person continues her trend of incapability. I want to see this event be successful, and ultimately the blame, if she fails, will fall back on me.

It would be completely unfair of me if I didn’t consider this from her side, which I have. She is very involved in campus, and in addition to tough class, has many other commitments she has to take care of. I’m sure there are numerous other things I’m not even aware of that add stress to her life as well. Not to mention, she has been sick a week or so ago, and now has to catch up on a weeks worth of missed classes - not an easy task. With all this mental baggage, the last thing she needs right now is my persistent questioning/nagging in her life. Caught up in so many things, she has unfortunately and unintentionally neglected some of her duties on exec board.

This is where I come in, worried and annoyed of her negligence, trying to set things write. Initially (and this is all what I think, I don’t know what she thinks), I tried to be friendly and address the concern, and gently asked her to initiate the process and gave her my trust. A few days later, after no action, I went again. This time, a little disappointed, I was friendly again and asked her to make a deadline for herself, so that there would be something I could hold her accountable to. 6 hours after the deadline, after my many emails and texts, she sent out an email.

Let me pause a moment to say how much it boggles my mind that I had to invest that much time and effort to get one measly email sent out.

Now, and predictably, I have annoyed this board member and if I try to follow up and get updates, I am either ignored or treated with bitterness and frustration - not where I wanted to be. To her, I probably come off as an overbearing, micromanaging, annoying asshole who has no sympathy, can’t understand all she has been through, and is impossible to work for. The thing is, I have tried very hard, and do understand her situation, and I don’t want to be any of those things - I’ve tried actively to avoid that. But at the same time, it is my job to make sure these things get done, and I have to draw the line at some point.

Personal annoyances aside, the biggest thing I take from this is disappointment. I’ve disappointed this exec member has neglected her duty, and I’m disappointed that she’s frustrated with me, because I really would be happy if she did what she was elected to do. I’m sure this is a problem most positions of leadership face, that notion of being the “bad guy” who’s constantly in peoples faces. I really wonder where the ideal balance is. I’m probably a bit more on the micro-managing side than I should be, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad as it could be. And the alternative, being completely hands off, would not have good consequences.

More than likely, that email still would’t have gone out.