Am I the only one tired of following politics?

This has been a never-ending barrage of messages from different political parties for different positions. Should we be surprised at people's wonder that very little gets done, given candidates are constantly busy trying to get elected for the next election?
Three suggestions:
1. Fix the amount of money that can be spent on campaigning. This way, candidates can demonstrate their effectiveness with limited resources. Time does not have to be restricted; candidates can decide how much time to devote based on available resources. Fund raisers don't have to be held and folks running for reelection can be busy actually doing something useful for people other than to schmooze with donors.
2. Electoral college system? Come on, only a few states appear to be deciding who ends up winning the presidency. What a mockery of people living in other states.
3. Fix the number of years any one can be in Washington (5 years? 10?). Folks running for reelection are focused only on that. This change can lead to their focus on actually making a mark on the society (hopefully, a positive one) and also give a chance to people with newer ideas.

Google's Goggles (Project glass): Cool and privacy stripping

Sergey Brin's demonstration of sky divers wearing Google's glasses was cool. (See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7TB8b2t3QE&feature=youtube_gdata_player) The introduction video of the glasses was also cool. (Intro video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6W4CCU9M4&feature=youtube_gdata_player).

What can the glasses potentially do for us? The glasses essentially displays the web in our peripheral vision and could potentially provide feedback in multimedia format. So, you could have a map showing you where you have to go while you are walking. You could gather data on any object/person/entity/institution on the fly when you approach it or see it or hear someone talk about it. This information could either be read out to you or can be read while you are engaging in other tasks in your 'real' world, in contrast to the 'virtual' world. There is absolutely nothing unavailable to you at your finger tips (rather your eye lids) when you put on your cool glasses.

Now isn't this all good? Yes and No.

Yes, because you now have access to the web and everything related to it without having to pull your smartphone out of your pocket and looking at that while walking. The glasses let you interact with the real and virtual world simultaneously. You could be making better decisions, buying better and cheaper products, and the benefits such as these are almost endless.

No, because of a host of similar reasons. You could be subject to tons of ads for products/companies you are close to, coupons for stores/services you are approaching, and a never-ending barrage of unsolicited messages. Any one can gather pretty much all public information about you by just seeing you (the glasses could potentially take a picture of yours and find everything about you from google's vast databases), knowing where you are and what you are doing. Similarly, one could gather potentially all information about your home by just looking at.

Of course, on-road distractions will increase, multitasking would be required, and attention will be divided among several competing tasks. This, of course, appears to be a good recipe for more accidents on road and other cognitive problems.

What can be done? By limiting the functionality of glasses, Google can address some of these concerns. However, this isn't a solution that will be acceptable to consumers themselves. I guess, we just have to accept the further stripping of our privacy by this more convenient product/service.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why women can't have it all: Blame it on the society?

To my beloved wife - my only blog follower, apologies for not boring you with my blogs for the past few months.

The media has been abuzz with an excellent article by Anne-Marie Slaughter in the Atlantic on why women can't still have it all. It addresses the difficulties women face in having a work-life balance and it essentially suggests that while one of these sphere has got to give whenever time as a limited resource poses a constraint, women are more likely to compromise on this 'work' part of the equation than men. This, according to her, is a likely explanation for the lack of women at the very top echelons of the professional ladder. She contrasts this with the 'lack of motivation' hypothesis, which is being proposed by Sheryl Sandberg. (This hypothesis suggests that women are missing from the top because they are not driven enough, not motivated enough, than their male counterparts.) Anne-Marie proceeds to suggest few options work-places could adopt to make women more welcome and more likely to continue to grow professionally.

Some thoughts...
1. What does 'having it all' mean? Assuming we had a fixed appetite (our stomach's capacity) and we had two types of chocolates on the table - one a 'professional' chocolate and the other a 'family' chocolate. We could fill our stomachs with either one or both types of chocolates in any proportion and the amount we decide to fill of each type determines the extent of success in that sphere. (A side note: what does success mean.) Does having it all imply a 50-50 split in what we consume? If it does, one will definitely encounter people who'd have one type more than the other, some times to an extreme (a 100 to 0 split). Therefore, in any sphere, one is clearly going to find someone else more successful unless they have a 100-0 split in that field. (This is not to suggest that two individuals who give their 100 to their professional fields will be equally 'successful'. There are several other factors that determine that, assuming there is a definition of success we can agree on.)
2. To what extent does our society create a bias in the ratio of 'professional' versus 'family' chocolate we consume? As an illustration, these pictures from a 'Drop in and Play' center at a local shopping mall presents the following associations.... a play home has inside it a cooking range, washer, and dryer, and this home is pink colored. No guesses for knowing which gender is supposed to be at home.






3. Can men have it all or is it expected that they have a 100-0 in favor of the professional chocolate? Or is this notion of "having it all" fairly fluid and subjective?


-Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Response to Zakaria on Education

Zakaria's column in TIME: http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2011/11/6_When_Will_We_Learn.html

The elucidation of the two ways of improving education is great- get students to work hard (S. Korea model) and/or make teaching a fabulous high paying profession and hire the best (Finland model). Between the two, I think the former is more important. Although I admit, from a policy standpoint, the latter is much easier to implement. Having been educated in India, which is a close clone of the S. Korean model, I realize that yes, the passion for learning is aroused by few teachers. But the hunger, energy, and stamina has to be students' and their families'. Not all teachers are exceptional even in these countries and not all of them spend a lot of time with their students. Contrast this with the Finnish model. They may have the best teachers, but can they wave their magic wand and educate a group of students with no energy and stamina for the long run? I doubt so.

There is a lot being written about education, teachers, and students, in isolation. However, a look at three broader societal changes can provide clues to why a few problems are surfacing. I am sure there can be many more explanations.

1. There is a greater emphasis on the short term than the long term.
------a) Need for immediate feedback and interactivity reduces the likelihood of investing in education for the long term, with no visible short term gains - therefore, theoretical concepts in the STEM fields are no longer sexy. This need is being facilitated by the constant ability to be 'plugged in' to the Internet and finding answers for everything and technological developments, where a gesture in front of a screen or on a screen provides immediate response. We are probably just becoming retrievers of information and not intelligent consumers or producers.
------b) How should a student decide whether to work for $10 an hour doing fun and cool things (like working in a store, blogging or tweeting) or spend that hour solving math problems, where s/he considers 'anxiety' as the compensation?
------c) When money is accessible at a young age as students, does it affect the hunger for education, given that for many, education still is instrumental in providing a better economic life?

2. Greater emphasis on measurement. To a great extent, measurement is very useful. But, the culture of measurement can often lead to measurement for the sake of doing it, sometimes with detrimental effects.
----- We measure student learning, GPA, Satisfaction scores, teacher ratings, etc. Is a lower score on any of these good? Should we be surprised of inflation in grades/ GPAs, student satisfaction scores, teaching ratings, and the culture of trying to meet the expectations of students, teachers, parents, and alumni, which may be geared towards the short run?
--- We measure the amount of time worked.... On a job for pay, on homework, etc. How many times have teachers met students who say that they worked one hour on an assignment and didn't get credit for their work. Since when did only the 'time spent' on an activity become a barometer of what one should earn and not the quality of work? Even if one made the case that measuring time is important in some instances, as I would myself, then we should be measuring the quality of the time spent on that activity. For example, I believe that the longer one spent just reading and solving or trying to solve math problems, the more they are primed to learn. However, if we are also listening to music, tweeting, checking mails, and checking the status of friends on facebook simultaneously, the quality is gong to be greatly affected. Clearly, one would ask the question, would you like to be operated by a surgeon who knows what s/he is doing in surgery or by a surgeon who spent time in med school doing other things.

3. The economic incentives of the society are not aligned with what is expected of it. If we want better standards of education, want higher levels of success in STEM, then these fields should be better paying than others, BY A LARGE MARGIN (to go with the calculation- is this deal good for me or can I get by with a little less money but very little complexity in my life). Are they?

What effects are we observing of status quo?

Students are choosing to switch from STEM fields to relatively easier fields, where they have a more relaxed quality of life (in the short run, it turns out to be) and better grades. However, the fields offering job security continue to be the STEM fields. In fact, these fields are experiencing a shortage of qualified employees.

The following are links to few recent news stories on this topic.

Move from STEM to other fields
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/why-science-majors-change-their-mind-its-just-so-darn-hard.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=edlife&adxnnlx=1321105629-fQVBvcX38S/vG%20pnxNB6PA&pagewanted=all

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577026212798573518.html

Students of which major are satisfied?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704011904575538561813341020.html

Others
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/11/11/gen-jobless-by-the-numbers/?KEYWORDS=Education

Interactive table of pay of fields and unemployment rates: http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=

Rise in college costs---- three questions

This is an email I sent to the faculty.

There is so much discussion of increased tuition and fees as well as higher levels of student debt (Occupy Wall street group). Three questions ---

1. Where is all the money spent? Clearly, faculty, who are presumably at the core at any institution of higher education--- creating knowledge and educating students --- have not seen the bump (if any at all) in salaries that debt or tuition has seen.

2. In terms of student debt --- there could be other factors besides tuition - are students living like students did 10-20-30 years ago? Is the value they associate with "education" the same today as it was 10-20-30 years ago?

3. Would parents be willing to send their children to colleges with minimal infrastructure but excellent faculty and a lower cost of education? Can there be such a place today?

Netflix shelves idea of Qwikster

http://nyti.ms/ouneqP


What in the world is the difference between going fast and going quick? They just need an excuse to justify their mess.

Steve Jobs... Thank you for a wonderful world

With your innovations, generations of people are together.