Educational Arsonists?

Wanted to make sure my bleeps were checking in on the following conversation on the needs for technical disciplines vs. liberal arts as they impact innovation and job creation: Engineering vs. Liberal Arts- Who's right Bill or Steve? and What Bill Gates Could Learn from Chris Rock

For those who like the sound of "educational arsonist" but aren't sure what I am talking about, click here.

I like the debate... a few observations (as an educational arsonist):

1) I think that "both" is best, but unusual in one person, and that is why entrepreneurship is such a great team sport.

2) It would be nice to recognize that "college/degree" is an early chapter in an evolving narrative, not the conclusion. Lots can happen post-university, thankfully. We are not bound by the decisions we make as 17 year olds.**

3) Perhaps some data-cruncher will establish the correlation between job creation and the degrees that a society's educational institutions grant. Until then, I am skeptical of any claim that granting more of any type of degree will create more jobs. That doesn't mean politicians won't still claim a tight relationship, but I think they confuse jobs with votes sometimes. How about letting go of the value judgements of which degrees are better?

4) Let's remember that a lot of education happens outside of classrooms and schools. Which is fine. Probably a better evolutionary swamp for disruptive innovation. Maybe "publish or perish" will become "adapt or perish" or maybe not. Universities are certainly one of society's longer lived institutions, and certainly not one of it's bigger sources of disruptive innovation.***

______________________________

*Thanks Nathaneal, for sharing the link with me on facebook earlier today.

**Disclosure: I settled on Political Science over Biology after conferring with my advisor junior year and checking my finances. I would graduate sooner and I thought I had hit the point of diminishing returns for college.

***For fun, substitute "reactive" for "innovative" in speeches on the topic of university innovation and entrepreneurship.

Well Meaning... Well Doing

I run into a lot of "well meaning" people in my work. I run into fewer "well doing" people. They are rarer, and more important. Here are a few observations:

Both are inspired, but I find the "well doing" to be inspirational (this has not always been the case- I have fallen for the siren song of the elegant concept... and probably will again).

In the fields of social entrepreneurship and impact investing, where impact is the ultimate goal, it is important not to confuse intention with impact.

Most well doing people are also well meaning, but the converse is not always the case.

Paul Graham urges entrepreneurs to "always produce" and Seth Godin asks "what have you shipped?" A good operating principle, and a good test of that principle. Complicated, of course, by the law of unintended consequences in this field where the desire to help others does not always translate into actually helping others. Right Professor Easterly?

The best "well doing" people are motivated by a desire to learn from, not just help, others. Examples of impactful co-creation are rare, but worth studying carefully. Examples of well intentioned "help that isn't" are not so rare, and are also worth studying carefully.

While I have been a skeptic on the issue of impact metrics, one of their most important uses may be to remind people of what really matters most. Metrics should measure mission, not drive it. And they need to be designed to measure what is done (are we "well doing"?), not what is meant to be done (are we "well meaning"?).

Losing a Leg

Historically, the autocrat's strategy for control could be the three legged stool of poverty, malnutrition and ignorance. Recent developments indicate that smart phones have knocked one leg out from under that stool. It is increasingly difficult to keep a populace ignorant of what is going on in the world.

Years ago I read Iqbal Qadir's provocative article on the impact of ICT on development and governments- much of what he discussed is now coming true.

"By influencing governance, these technologies can release resources trapped beneath vested interests. This impact is far greater than the conveniences for which these technologies are ordinarily known."

The other two legs may be cut short as well. Iqbal's brother helped develop Cell Bazaar in part to transmit better market data to Bangladeshi farmers so they could get better prices and higher incomes. And a recent story on NPR detailed efforts by Mercy Corps to use mobile cash to replace more traditional forms of aid (including often disruptive food aid).

The impact of the smart phone on the BOP dwarfs the impact of most aid, development and social entrepreneurship programs. In recent days, it also seems to also be dwarfing the impact of national intelligence, diplomacy and news media.

Some refer to mobile phones as "just" a tool. You know, like fire, the wheel, agriculture, genetics....