Passages I like

From Cringely:

My kids go to the best public school in Sonoma County. I know that because I chose my house based on that research. But when Cole finishes his math problems in a quarter the time it takes anyone else in the class, his teacher has him insert a wait state by putting his head down on his desk.  Conversely, when some other kid never quite gets the problem set finished, ever, well he/she never gets a rest and never masters the material, either.

The current system is unfair to both kids.

The only solution I can see is one teacher per student. And the only way something close to that is going to happen is through technology.  And it’s coming.

 A followup passage that I don't like but agree with:

My conclusion, then, is that schools serve a limited social and cultural function but our kids mainly learn despite them. My own experience is that I learned a lot about learning from half a dozen teachers in my life, so those relationships are both rare and essential. But are they reliable enough to even justify modern schools?  I don’t know. What I do know is that if I want to improve the educational environment for my children in the next year or two, I’ll probably have to come up with my own solutions.

Another good Cringely piece

Cringely has a followup to his column on consultants, this time tackling the big research firms like Gartner and Forrester.  His critique in a nutshell:  Those firms live off churn, and that is not in anyone else's interest.  Worth reading.

Excellent Cringely column/podcast

Cringely has an excellent column and associated podcast up dated 4/18.  His thesis in a nutshell:  Most IT consultants don't know what they're doing, and trusting such people can destroy a company.  What he doesn't say is that many internal IT departments are no better then consultants. 

The fundamental problem is businesses that don't know what they're doing.  What is the average duration of employment for someone with a given organization, maybe 5 years?  How long does it take to understand all the nuances and tricks, to know what is real and what is merely label?  One year, at a minimum. 

Now add a level of complexity:  how long does it take to gain sufficient mastery to be able to explain these intricacies to someone else?  It's the difference between being a student and being a teacher.  I'd say another year, easily.

So in a given company, at least 20% of the people don't know what they're doing, and another 20% are probably doing the right thing but couldn't tell you why.  Throw in the fact that most of these 40% will not self identify, and it's no wonder requirement gathering sucks! 

Cringely cites a successful consultant, Christine Comaford-Lynch:

A key part of her success was her requirements gathering process. She turned it into a very effective collaboration effort involving the key people who would use the software.

Sounds to me like she was good at separating the wheat from the chaff.

POW: Cringely

Robert Cringely put out an excellent column on 3/21/08, the podcast is here.  The theme:  Society at large is only just beginning to adapt to the emergence of personal computing, and that changes to come will be greater then the ones we've already seen.  He picks on schools in particular as an institution destined to be radically altered in character and purpose.

The current educational system is designed to help children internalize knowledge, that is to learn.  Technology in this setting is a two edged sword- on the one hand it permits vast and cheap access to knowledge (Wikipedia).  It also permits vast and cheap plagiarism and cheating (Yahoo Answers).

Cringely poses the question:  Should schools be fighting such conduct?  Is knowing how to find an answer an adequate substitute for knowing the answer itself?  In an information economy the answer must be yes, and if so what then should educational institutions look like?

For a less pessimistic view of the future of education, see Brown and Duguid.