Category: Guidance

Find answers to questions you never knew existed.

The Nature of Competition: Part II

Duncan Leave a comment

In part I we discussed the different forms of competition, the origin of sport and the difference between direct and indirect competition. Now we will explore the role of competition in other areas and determine whether it’s actually a constructive behavior.

As we discussed earlier, the major function of competition in nature is to ensure the survival of those most fit for their environment. Modern human competition is used to propel ourselves to achieve new levels of excellence and elevate those who are more talented or dedicated. Competition is a wonderful thing for those who succeed, but as Charles Schulz reminds us, “Nobody remembers who came in second.”

Beyond the podium, in silent locker rooms and on long drives home, the unremembered contemplate the purpose of their efforts. Failure is a necessary component in competition; there’s no way round it. Even the most innocent and well-meaning contests produce failure. These failures are not incidental, but a requirement in order to produce the successes, for a competition without losers is not considered legitimate.

By asking individuals to compete against each other, we are demanding failure. We’re taking pleasure in watching people devote their lives to something and come up short. This reveals how competition is actually a cruel experiment carried out by fans, coaches and parents. By enticing individuals with visions of fame and fortune, while planting false ideas of superiority and a right to win, competitors are conduced to compete, and often fail, for our amusement. But when disappointment falls on those who didn’t achieve their goal, their only consolation is that they may have a chance to redeem themselves. This cycle can continue indefinitely, when a simple cost-benefit analysis of would easily determine that competition is a poor investment.

We may attempt to excuse ourselves from responsibility by proposing that failure is a result of inadequacy, but the fact is that it will come to most, regardless of their efforts. In addition, competition has no sense of justice, so there is no guarantee that the most deserving will be victorious.

Another fundamental part of competition is enmity. Competition is conflict, and in order to have conflict, we must have an us and a them. It is essential that we detach ourselves from those we compete against, for our actions may directly result in their failure. Some competitors intentionally disassociate themselves with their competitors or even foster feelings of hatred in order to compete more intensely or without the restrictions that come with viewing an opponent as a fellow human being. Although there can be great respect between opponents, this relationship is hardly worthy of admiration. There cannot be unity between competitors, for in striving for the same goal we are actually stealing from others what they do not yet possess. There is a limited number of awards to be won, so the aim of each participant is to look out only for themselves, even at the cost of others. This may not be considered theft in the conventional way, but it is by our actions that our opponents are robbed of their prize.

This is also true in the world of business. Looking through the lens of nature, if sport is a dramatization of survival, then economic competition is an embodiment of the battle to feed. Much like blind pups suckling for sustenance, or wild dogs clashing for a piece of a kill, businesses compete to get a larger share of the market. Unlike in many sports, the aim of business competitors is not necessarily the elimination of their opponents, though that is sometimes the case. However, since they are often striving for the same goal, the competition can still be extremely fierce.

Because of the influence of capitalism and our confidence in the competitive market, the competition between businesses seems like an acceptable and upright practice, but the truth of the matter is that many honest, hardworking individuals are regularly driven into poverty. There is no room for empathy in competition, and as we already touched on, no role for justice, since there is no assurance that honest efforts will be rewarded or that underhanded deeds will be punished.

Another example of human competition can be seen in struggle for social superiority. Individuals compete to be the most popular and well-liked because we derive value from the knowledge of how we are perceived by others. This motivates us to keep up with, or surpass, those around us in whatever categories we deem important. Whether it be a measure of wealth, beauty or accomplishment, we can’t help but create competition with those around us.

Unlike official contests, these social arms races are conducted in silence, without terms or rules, and they are eternal. There is no beginning or end and no declaration of winners or losers in social competition, only the vague sense of comfort and supremacy that comes with being better at life than others. Social competition is indirect, since we rarely interfere with others’ quest for material excellence, but the frustration and sadness of those trapped below are definitely real. When we show off our new house, toned figure or gold medal to our neighbor, we could be subjecting them to feelings of inferiority, whether or not we are aware that we are competing.

Shall we continue to raise our children to view other people as enemies, to prioritize themselves above others and to subject themselves to failure for our amusement? Shall we chase success at the cost of the misery and failure of others, like ravenous beasts?

The Nature of Competition: Part I

Duncan Leave a comment

Of all the curious behaviors we exhibit, sport has to be the greatest non-essential expenditure of resources. After all, what purpose does it serve? It doesn’t feed the hungry, clothe the naked or better mankind. In fact, it only increases our consumption of the Earth’s limited resources and distracts us from the things in life that actually matter. It could be argued that sport helps keep us active, healthy and happy, but the existence of the multi-billion-dollar professional sports industry is doing little to curb growing rates of obesity and depression.

So why is sport so popular? What is it about competition that stirs us to push our bodies to the limit, paint our faces and riot in the street? The answer could lie in our ancestors’ struggle for survival.

In the past, humans, like other creatures, were constantly subjected to the cruelties of nature, always searching for food while evading predators and peril. However, for most who dwell in the first world, survival is assumed. We do not worry about being hunted by beasts or succumbing to starvation. Although there is still a need to provide for ourselves, we no longer do it through strength or cunning. Because of this, the focus of our existence has changed substantially. Success, which has replaced survival as the primary motivation for competing, doesn’t ask us to be strong or fast, vicious or violent (at least in the physical sense). This has created a vacuum – an appetite for the primal, physical conflict we once endured. Sport fills this void by creating a dramatization of survival.

Before addressing the many types of sport, it’s important to distinguish between single participant and team sports. Although both are common throughout history, today’s team sports tend to have more intense fans. This could be caused by the relative lack of war in the developed world. Our ancestors lived under the constant threat of invasion by enemy tribes or nations, something completely foreign to many of us. Without an avenue to focus our instinct to defend the collective, it’s possible that many throw their furor behind a local or national sports team in an attempt to satisfy nationalist inclinations.

Now there are many different kinds of sport, some representing survival more closely than others. Bobsled racing, for example, bears no resemblance to anything seen in nature, while wrestling, which has existed for millennia, is a fairly raw and accurate representation of unarmed human combat. Although more classic sports, such as wrestling, have been present in some form in nearly every civilization throughout history, some of them are losing favor because of their violent nature. Violence is no longer seen as an acceptable avenue to settle a dispute, despite the fact that most every other creature does this. But as we are attempting to suppress our violent nature, the rising popularity of mixed martial arts may suggest that we still harbor an appetite for a more elementary form of competition. After all, of what use is the ability to run while bouncing a ball or hit a puck into a net while skating on frozen water? No one ever lived or died based on these skills; they are completely arbitrary.

Until now we have been discussing the origin of competition and its various forms, but it’s at this point that we make a significant distinction between two different categories of competition: direct and indirect. Direct competition pits two or more participants, or teams, against each other in a head-to-head battle in which each competitor is attempting to achieve victory over their opponent(s). Examples of direct competition would include hockey, tennis and Starcraft. Indirect competition, on the other hand, doesn’t ask competitors to interfere with each other, but merely to strive for the highest level of achievement, often while competing in close proximity, either at the same or a similar time. Examples of indirect competition include golf, memory sport and track and field events. A simple way to distinguish direct from indirect competition is that indirect sports can be played by a single participant, while direct sports require at least two participants.

There are also some sports which lie somewhere between the two, such as baseball, which does require that players compete against each other, but only allows them to interact through a complicated set of rules that makes the game exceedingly slow and uninteresting. The only directly competitive interaction between opposing players comes when the batter swings at a ball thrown by the pitcher.

It’s interesting how indirect competition between athletes can be simultaneously intense, while totally fabricated. Most people are not aware that when they are watching the 100-meter dash, they aren’t actually watching athletes compete against one another. What they are watching is athletes performing in the same place and at the same time, which creates the illusion of competition. Of course, it seems as though they are trying to outrun each other, but they are actually just running as fast as they can. The fact that the runners are side-by-side has nothing to do with their performance, other than the added pressure. It’s very likely that the winner of the race isn’t the fastest runner, but merely the person who is the fastest on that particular day, or perhaps it’s simply the person who performs best under pressure.

There are also some forms of indirect competition, such as high jump and weightlifting, that are not decided by the best single performance, but through a process of elimination, similar to the game of limbo. In such sports, athletes are required to achieve a minimum level of performance in order to remain in the competition. After each round, those who failed to do so are removed, and the required level is increased. A winner is eventually crowned when only one athlete is able to successfully complete the task.

Although this system of indirect competition generates excitement and increases the duration of the competition, it is completely unnecessary in order to determine a winner. We could just use an apparatus that measures jump height or lifting force, but that would merely expose how uninteresting these sports actually are. Also, just imagine how foolish it would be to use elimination system for other events, such as the 100-meter dash. Asking competitors to repeatedly run the same distance and faster each time would be absurd.

Of all of the strange forms of competition, bracket drag racing has to be the most contrived and fictitious. The idea of having two vehicles race to a finish line, although indirect, seems pretty valid, but that’s not what bracket racing is about. In fact, in no way does the sport actually determine who is the fastest. Here’s why:

Before the race, the drivers submit their dial-in, which is their projected time to cross the finish line, a time which the driver may not beat during the actual competition. The car with the faster dial-in is then given a handicap equal to the difference between the two times, which eliminates the advantage. Once the race is over, the driver with the faster time is declared the winner. But how, exactly, does the race determine who is faster? The slower car is given a head start, so it doesn’t matter at all who is faster, only who performed closest to their dial-in. A race between a child on a tricycle and a tough guy in a muscle car would be exactly as legitimate.

In order to be successful, a sport must meet many requirements. Among those, it must be designed around human ability. It can’t be too difficult, lest the casual participant find it unenjoyable. Neither can it be too easy, for it must have a skill cap that allows professionals to continually improve. It also can’t take too long a time to play and risk boring audiences, or too short a time, requiring long pauses and artificial structures to increase its duration. A good sport is also simple, which is another reason why classic sports have endured for so long. Demanding that athletes conform to rules that are exceedingly silly or irrelevant may fail to capture the essence of competition, which is survival.

In part II we will explore the role of competition outside of sport, and how it’s actually pure evil.

How to Spot a Racist

Duncan Leave a comment

Everyone knows that racism is bad, but what is racism? What is race, for that matter, and how can the human race be comprised of many different races? Despite our agreement that racism is unacceptable, the fact is that many of us might find it difficult to define.

Before continuing, we must acknowledge that race is a sensitive issue, for many have suffered because of racist policies and racially motivated abuse. We’ve got a history so full of mistakes. Despite this sensitivity, it’s important that this concept is not spared from scrutiny and comprehension. In fact, sensitivity only increases the necessity for understanding, since ignorance makes a feeble shelter. Let’s begin by attempting to forge agreeable definitions of race and racism.

Race, although commonly understood to describe the differing clusters of humans found across the globe, leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Some believe that a race is any people group that displays unique physical or genetic traits, but since we know that every population is unique, there seems to be an implied minimum level of difference. Instead of debating the exact population size or genetic dissimilarity required to categorize a race, let’s just think of a race in the classical sense: a group of humans which can be differentiated by physical appearance.

Now that we’ve defined race, it should be relatively simple to understand racism. The idea conjures a vast, potent array of imagery and emotion, much of which could be captured in two concepts: intolerance and inferiority. These ideas can be synthesized by defining racism as the belief that some races are more valuable than others and should be awarded special rights. Having isolated our terminology, let’s examine how racism is commonly misidentified.

The following sentences are examples of statements that could be misunderstood to be racist in nature:

  • Asians are short.
  • Americans are fat.
  • The French are great lovers.
  • Australians are laid back.
  • Jews control the movie industry.

That’s right, these are not racist statements. Although they are statements about race (or nationality), they are actually stereotypes – oversimplifications or misrepresentations of a group, often founded on anecdotal evidence. None of these examples imply that a race is inferior to another or that they should be treated differently. They are merely identifying, accurately or not, general characteristics of a people group.

Stereotyping, though distinct from racism, can evoke racism by affirming negative views of other races. However, it is important to understand that believing a stereotype does not make someone a racist, even if that stereotype mocks or denigrates another race. Mockery isn’t racism. In fact, it’s often a sign of acceptance.

A person may also be prejudiced against a race, branding members of that group with qualities informed by a stereotype, but this also isn’t racism. As stated earlier, a racist view doesn’t merely perceive differences between races, it asserts inferiority.

Stereotypes are often based on exaggerated or isolated examples, but they can stem from verified sources as well. The fact that one in eleven African-Americans is incarcerated could be used to support the stereotype that African-Americans are criminals, which might then lead to the racist idea that African-Americans are inferior because of their criminal tendencies and should be treated differently. Here’s another example of how a legitimate observation could lead to racism:

  1. Aboriginals have historically struggled with alcoholism (observation)
  2. Aboriginals are alcoholics (stereotype)
  3. This person is aboriginal, therefore they are an alcoholic (prejudice)
  4. Aboriginals should be restricted from purchasing alcohol (racism)

It’s crucial to recognize that an observation that could be used to support a stereotype may still be useful. We should not discard such information, since, as we already mentioned, ignorance is not a proper defense against misunderstanding.

Although the distinction between racism, stereotype and prejudice may seem trivial, we must comprehend the difference between these ideas in order to correctly identify the motivation behind statements like the ones presented in the examples above. It’s also essential that we avoid incorrectly labeling people and policies as racist when they are, in fact, not racist at all. In addition, we must be careful to avoid the frivolous application of such harmful titles, lest we erode their meaning and needlessly offend.

This differentiation applies to other areas as well, including sexism, which is not merely the observation of differences between the sexes, but the support of intolerance toward or perceived inferiority of a sex.

The purpose of this clarification is not to excuse the reinforcement of stereotypes or the prejudgment of others for any reason, but merely to educate on what constitutes racism. In the same breath, we must not shy away from issues of race and sex, for that would mean denying the very features that define us.

Just because we aren’t equal doesn’t mean we aren’t of equal value.

Tang

Duncan Leave a comment

With a consumer economy that fosters a rampant appetite for new and exciting superficial experiences, it’s not surprising that some of the products appearing on our shelves seem excessive or odd. Found among them: a myriad of synthetically flavored food products.

Synthetic (or artificial) flavoring is the process of simulating a flavor rather than relying on the ingredient(s) from which the flavor is originally derived. This allows us to experience a virtually infinite combination of textures and flavors. An example of this would be orange soda, which contains no oranges, yet tastes, to a limited extent, like an orange.

Artificial flavoring should not be confused with natural flavoring, in which a flavor is added by the introduction of authentic ingredients. An example of this would be chocolate milk, which acquires its chocolaty flavor directly from the chocolate contained therein. Most would agree that synthetic flavoring is the inferior method, but natural flavoring is more restrictive due to the fact that natural ingredients are expensive, don’t always fuse together properly, and may have an undesirable texture. Though artificially flavored food is often lacking in nutrition, there is an even worse process – one which produces items that border on inedibility.

Tertiary flavoring uses existing, recognized food products, not ingredients, as the basis for the creation of flavor. Basically, this means that food is being flavored to imitate other food, instead of a single flavor. Examples of tertiary flavoring include cheeseburger-flavored potato chips, cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream and pizza-flavored salad dressing. However, contrary to what the product’s title implies, pizza is not a flavor.

The term flavor carries a connotation that suggests a raw, elemental state as well as a distinct identity. Although pizza does produce a unique and memorable sensation when in the mouth, what we’re actually experiencing is the combined flavor of a variety of different ingredients, including cheese, tomato sauce and fingernails. To better illustrate tertiary flavoring, let’s take a closer look at the origin of cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream.

cinnamon (flavor) + bun (food) = cinnamon bun (flavored food)

cinnamon bun (flavored food) + ice cream (food) = cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream (food-flavored food)

The idea of food-flavored food is obviously ridiculous. Flavors are colors, not pictures – attributes, not objects. To make things worse, food-flavored food is almost always flavored synthetically, since, as mentioned earlier, it can be costly and difficult to add food to food.

On top of that, everyone knows that food is made of ingredients, not food. If we looked at the back of a bag of birthday cake mix, we would hope that the ingredient list wouldn’t just say “birthday cake.” Birthday cake tastes like birthday cake because it contains the ingredients that come together to form that particular flavor, not because it contains birthday cake. Likewise, if we looked up a recipe for fettuccine Alfredo, we would expect a detailed list of steps and ingredients to help us create the dish, not “acquire fettuccine Alfredo.”

Some claim that pizza and cinnamon bun are legitimate flavors because they are uniquely recognizable, but if we accept this line of thinking, then cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream is also a flavor. And if that’s the case, then one day we could see cinnamon bun-flavored ice cream flavored coffee, or worse.

Don’t buy food-flavored food.

Ethnic City

Duncan Leave a comment

A multicultural society is one which is ethnically diverse, where a population is comprised of a variety of unique cultures. Ethnic diversity is generally agreed to be a positive thing, since it’s believed to promote tolerance by allowing us to experience different cultures. Unfortunately, no matter how beautiful and wonderful we find multiculturalism, it will inevitably consume itself.

What proponents of multiculturalism fail to realize is that the primary causes for the broad spectrum of culture in our world are isolation and intolerance. Cultural differences only exist because of segregation of different groups of people. War, oppression, famine, disaster and opportunity have caused the perpetual migration of these groups throughout history. This migration results in the evolution of culture through a sort of unnatural selection.

This artificial evolution also occurs on the genetic level, since the interbreeding of races obscures their defining attributes. Organizations that promote multiculturalism often use contrived images depicting simplified human figures of varying color working in harmony, often sharing platonic physical contact. Ironically, these colors only exist because of reproductive isolation.

Populations are constantly converging and dispersing in a cycle of cultural rebirth. Like the mythical Ouroboros, culture is self-consuming, yet never consumed. The shifting and blending of cultures produces new and distinct identities while destroying others. However, globalization has interrupted this cycle, causing the amalgamation of once disconnected populations, which will inevitably dilute the features that distinguish them, dooming the world’s population to eventually merge into one homogeneous culture and race.

If we really value different cultures, then we should support segregation. However, since segregation is considered bigoted and closed-minded, there’s only one thing left to do: spread glorious convergence to the entire world.

Heat

Duncan Leave a comment

In the world of physics, heat is understood as the transfer of the kinetic energy of molecules between bodies. In the world of cooking, heat is viewed as the method by which raw ingredients are transformed into delectable cuisine. Although both perspectives deal with the same phenomenon, their interpretations are much different.

Those who study physics are interested in heat on a microscopic level, observing the mechanics of energy transfer between particles and molecules. Students of the culinary arts, on the other hand, are concerned with the macroscopic nature of heat, which could be described as the role that heat plays in our lives. Both of these approaches are valid, with each exposing a unique truth about heat, but there is something that physics cannot teach us – something that every chef knows – that all heat is not created equal.

For a moment, imagine that you’re going to bake a delicious chocolate cake in celebration of a special occasion, such as an anniversary. The process begins with the collection of the necessary ingredients: flour, sugar, eggs, baking soda, baking powder, cocoa and vanilla. The components are then thoroughly mixed together, resulting in a sweet, yet noxious sludge that any sane person would deem inedible. Without the essential component of heat, the cake cannot become a cake. However, there are many ways in which heat may be added to the ingredients, and only one of them will produce a cake worthy of serving. We must choose the right heat for the job. After all, we don’t boil our bacon, and we wouldn’t bake an egg.

Although each method by which heat is imbued into our food serves a purpose, some methods are considered unfavorable or even unacceptable, regardless of circumstance. Here is a list of the most common ways that we heat our food, including a brief description of the typical result of each method, loosely ranked from most to least prestigious:

  1. Braising: moist, luscious.
  2. Sautéing: rich, succulent.
  3. Roasting: scrumptious, savory.
  4. Grilling: slightly charred, moist.
  5. Steaming: fresh, humid.
  6. Baking: savory or sweet, sometimes dry.
  7. Barbecuing: smoky and charred, sometimes dry.
  8. Frying: greasy, crispy.
  9. Slow cooking: savory, soft.
  10. Deep frying: extremely greasy, crunchy.
  11. Boiling: damp, often bland.
  12. Microwaving: soggy, tasteless, often unevenly cooked.

The precise order of the list is debatable, but its spirit is undeniable. This is why, when browsing a restaurant menu, we would choose the roasted vegetables over the boiled vegetables and the braised ham over the fried ham. The lack of credibility attributed to certain forms of heat also explains why some folks refuse to microwave their coffee. Practitioners of coffee snobbery would rather see their sacred liquid poured down the drain than blasphemously irradiated by the most depraved form of heat.

The quality of heat we use is directly related to the quality of food we wish to create. When whipping up a quick bite, we may choose to boil or microwave, but we wouldn’t consider consuming boiled steak or microwaved salmon. Sure, there are recipes to follow and general rules for cooking, but we cannot ignore the aura of shame attached to certain heating methods. Heat choice is important. In fact, in many cases heat is actually more important than the ingredients themselves.

It’s strange to think that microwaves were originally expected to replace traditional ovens, allowing housewives to cook roasts to perfection with the push of a button. Some advertisements went so far as to claim that the microwave was the greatest cooking invention since fire. If only we recognized the poor quality of the heat they produced, perhaps we wouldn’t tolerate microwavable packaged meals.

Would you rather eat a braised hot dog or a microwaved filet mignon?

Creating Jobs

Duncan Leave a comment

How many employees does it take to screw in a light bulb? The answer, it seems, is as many as possible.

In the past, when pitching a commercial venture opportunity to potential investors, one would have touted low risk and high return on invested capital, but these days economic viability won’t cut it in the eyes of the public. This isn’t because of environmental risks or even a disdain for big business. The reason why so many projects are derailed by public opinion is simply because they don’t create enough jobs.

Job creation is now a standard criteria for judging the viability of an investment. For example, if a city is considering constructing a new bridge, prison or stadium, it must first convince the public that the project will employ an substantial number of local workers. Thus, it is understood to be a positive when a project requires a large amount of labor, and a negative when a project requires little labor. This line of thinking seems to make sense, since citizens need jobs in order to perpetuate the consumer-driven economy. But if we think about job creation in relation to efficiency, it becomes clear that the two are actually adversaries.

When we refer to efficiency in this case, we mean the amount of labor required to produce or sustain a specific project or business. For example, a toll bridge may require 5 full-time employees for toll-collection and 5 for maintenance, but after switching to an automated tolling system, now only requires a total of 5 employees in order to function, thus doubling the efficiency of the project. Most would agree that the automated tolling system is a wise investment, but what about the 5 employees who lost their jobs? Doesn’t the economy suffer when people are unemployed?

The short answer is no, the economy does not suffer when efficiency is increased. The long answer is still no, but it’s more complicated.

Ever since the industrial revolution, humans have endured massive layoffs and labor migrations at the hands of mechanization. Movies like The Matrix and Wall-E depict a grim future where machines have either seized, or been entrusted with, control, resulting in a pacified, purposeless human existence.

Another perceived threat is the replacement of skilled workers with a cheap, and often illegal, immigrant labor force. The use of language like, “they took our jobs,” reveals the sense of ownership that we feel about our employment. This is interesting, considering how slaves were seen as a great asset to societies in the past. It’s likely that those from the past would find it comical that a nation considers it a problem when another race is voluntarily doing all of its hard labor.

Eventual replacement, either by a machines, immigrants or the next generation, has always been a threat to the employed. However, the solution is not to restrict automation or immigration or to prevent the restructuring of an inefficient model. No one has a right to a job, for employment is not guaranteed by any charter, but neither should it be gifted to us by charity. Employment is merely the satisfaction of a demand for labor.

In some cases, the government will mandate employment, regardless of the return on their investment, in an effort to stave off unemployment, which can further damage fragile economies. These make-work projects seem like reasonable solutions, since governments worldwide took this approach to solve the economic crisis of the late 2000s. However, we cannot escape the reality that employing for the sake of employment is not a sustainable practice. Now let’s look more closely at how efficiency is a threat to employment.

With many businesses now filing and transferring documents electronically, paper consumption has declined. Because of this, paper mills may be forced to lay off employees. Does this mean that we should keep using paper, simply to keep these folks working? Few would agree.

We can comfort ourselves by knowing that the loss of employment in the paper production industry may be compensated by increased employment in the online storage industry, but this is not guaranteed. Taken to the extreme, imagine that an invention is discovered which will revolutionize human industry, such as instantaneous teleportation. This invention would dramatically increase productivity by reducing transportation costs to zero, but it would also cause the collapse of major corporations, resulting in significant job loss. Do we accept this invention in the hopes that the efficiency will outweigh the economic damage of the unemployment, or protect the stability of the economy by ensuring that the device is never produced?

The answer, of course, is that we should accept the new invention, the same way that we should accept automation and immigration. Although it’s true that technology does replace high numbers of unskilled labor positions with fewer skilled positions, this has not yet resulted in the demise of employment. In fact, employment has remained generally constant over the past 50 years in the United States, averaging about 93% and rarely dipping below 90%. It’s true that increased efficiency costs people jobs, but it also allows us access to products and services that would otherwise be impossible to afford. If computers, cars, books and clothing were all produced locally and by hand, many of us would not be e-mailing, driving, reading or warm.

Will there always be enough jobs? It’s impossible to know. But preventing industrial and technological development for fear of unemployment seems like a primitive and futile response. Perhaps one day all of the world’s labor will be performed by one lucky person, while the rest of us suffer.

Schooled

Duncan Leave a comment

Parents are very concerned with their children’s education, attending parent-teacher conferences and analyzing grades in order to gauge their child’s progress. They claim that they’re acting in the best interest of their offspring, but their chief aim is receiving favorable report cards. For most parents it doesn’t matter whether their child understands long division, World War I or proper semicolon use; they simply want their child to get good grades so they can enroll in a reputable university and earn more good grades.

But are grades really a trustworthy measurement of understanding? As we’ve already discussed, testing in schools often more accurately measures memorization and study tactics than authentic comprehension. Also, we know that students are often graded on knowledge and abilities that have little or nothing to do with the subject of study. For example, it is common for students to be asked to draw pictures, record and edit video, give presentations and create posters in classes such as English and social studies. These tasks are often explained as an avenue for artistic students to succeed in classes that aren’t artistic in nature. In other words, we want students with a poor understanding of the subject matter to do well. In addition, we also know that our education system does little to prepare young people for adult life, namely raising a family.

So what if we actually wanted to measure, with some objectivity, the quality of the education a child is receiving? In order to properly assess the situation, we must look at both the efficiency and the effectiveness of our educational system, for we must consider both the resources and time spent educating students as well as the results of that education if we are to determine the success of our schools. Let’s being by examining educational efficiency.

There are about 195 school days every year, with students spending about 6 hours of each day in class. This regimen echoes 12 times, allowing each student about 15,000 hours of education by the time they graduate. However, this number doesn’t account for time spent studying, doing homework or participating in any extra-curricular activities. As for the funding, the total projected education expenditures in the United States for the 2012-2013 school year is $571 billion. With about 50 million primary and secondary students enrolled nationwide, the annual cost per student works out to approximately $11,500. Now let’s examine the fruit of this expense.

American College Testing exams are designed to measure comprehension of English, reading, math and science in an attempt to determine the level of preparation for post-secondary education. Recent scores indicate that only 1 in 4 high school graduates are prepared for college in all four areas. These findings are corroborated in a study produced by the Alliance for Excellent Education, which revealed that 1 in 3 young adults are unprepared for life after high school. The study asked employers of recent graduates to rate them in certain areas. Around 80% of employers observed deficiencies in communication, work ethic, critical thinking and basic writing skills.

This apparent lack of effective education could even translate into a national security issue, according to the United States Secretary of Education. Today, nearly 25% of young people are unable to pass the U.S. Army entrance exam, which asks basic science, reading and math questions such as, “If 2 plus x equals 4, what is the value of x?”

So after 15,000 hours at school and $150,000 spent, we should expect high school graduates to be flexing some mental agility and confounding their elders with the volumes of knowledge they retain, but as we’ve seen, this isn’t the case. The failure of this educational model becomes even more stark when contrasted with an alternative to traditional education: homeschooling.

Studies have repeatedly confirmed that children taught at home outperform their publicly educated peers on standardized tests. They are also spared from many temptations and adversities that public school students encounter, resulting in reduced teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol abuse and bullying. A common criticism of homeschooling is that children are sheltered from society, leading to deficiencies in communication and social awkwardness. These assertions have no legitimate foundation, since studies show that homeschooled students are significantly more likely to vote, involve themselves in the community and identify themselves as happy. Besides, if parents were really concerned that their children would miss out on the social aspects of public education, they could simply reject and berate their children throughout the day.

So homeschooling is clearly more effective than traditional public education, but how efficient is it in terms of the time and resources invested? The average cost of homeschooling is about $500 per year, which is about 4.3% of the cost of public education. Homeschooled students also put in less time, usually requiring only 3 to 5 hours per day, or around 67% of the time a public student will take.

Homeschooling is clearly far more effective and efficient than public education, revealing just how unsuccessful our schools have become. For if a facility with a library, gymnasium, classrooms, computers, educated teachers and administration, special needs services and counselling can be outperformed by a concerned parent with a textbook, then our approach to education is seriously dysfunctional.

If instead of spending $60 per day to send our child to public school, we were to homeschool them and put the difference in a savings plan, our child would graduate with a better education, a happier life and about $190,000 in the bank.