Oct 21 2009, 4:36PM
Let Them Eat Hot Fudge and Whipped Cream
In Wednesday's New York Times, Tom Friedman posited (yet again) that Americans are losing ground because we are lazy, passive, and/or just plan ignorant. As is his custom he begins with an anecdote, a supposedly chance encounter with a one time PepsiCo and Kraft Europe executive now laboring in the stony fields of international investment. We learn nothing of this man's personal educational background or his credentials, but we do hear him warn that " education failure is the largest contributing factor to the decline of the American worker's global competitiveness, particularly at the middle and bottom ranges."
Say what? There's a growing body of evidence to show that extremely well educated Americans are scrambling for work--some with advanced degrees in science and engineering from the country's most demanding institutions of higher learning. But wait, education is not enough -- we must hustle, too. Friedman quotes another unnamed "friend" a lawyer whose firm has gone through a series of lay-offs. This friend shares the "interesting" observation that "lawyers who were used to just showing up and having work handed to them were the first to go because with the bursting of the credit bubble, that flow of work just isn't there. But those who have the ability to imagine new services, new opportunities and new ways to recruit work were being retained. They are the new untouchables."
Who are these untouchables? Well, certainly not the "average" among us, that great majority of ordinary humans who simply know how to do a job and do it well. "It's all about what chocolate sauce, whipped cream and cherry you can put on top," Friedman concludes. "So our schools have a doubly hard task now -- not just improving reading, writing and arithmetic but entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity."
Last time I looked, schools were having a hard enough time teaching kids the basics--now they are expected to "teach" creativity and entrepreneurship? One wonders how Mr. Friedman would have managed as an independent entrepreneur without the power of the Times to back him. But one wonders even more about the reasoning of a commenter who argues that the average American doesn't have a chance in this new global economy, and that only the extraordinary deserve a place in his brave new world.
(Photo: Flickr/GIHE)
Ellen Ruppel Shell
I wonder about that reasoning too, as well as if Mr. Friedman was "born on third base but has spent the majority of his life thinking that he hit a tripple."
It is so common to hear from "experts" about how, in order to succeed in today's world, one essentially needs to be perfect in every way: pedigree, education, experience, raw talent, etc, etc. We got the memo: "you will have a much better and easier life if you are rich, powerful, well connected, never made any mistakes, and are generally autonomous in every way." You think? People are flogged with this message day in day out for their entire lives. Yet most have to overcome great obstacles just to survive.
It is easy for folks to promote social darwinism when they are riding the wave of success (or benefiting from the success of someone else). But everyone would do well to remember their inevitable mortality, broader dependency, and finitude - while not forgetting our responsibility to others.
You're not kidding, Ellen. Forget about the direct criticism of Tom Friedman, which is easy and not even worth doing because it's nigh universal on the more creative parts of the web; the deal for humanity, going forward as it has been going backward, is that the huge bulk are going to have to do jobs that don't require Einsteinian insight or Obamian grace or they're going to have to be the recipient of direct transfer payments.
I would concentrate on innovative ways to implement the latter.
Ellen,
Your column was forwarded to me by a friend. I am the person quoted in Friedman's op-ed, and for the record our discussion occurred exactly as he described. Hopefully my comments will be considered by their logic and the facts, not by my background. However FYI I am the son of a US civil servant, educated in US public schools and American schools abroad, followed by American universities.
There are a few points I would respectfully add here to Friedman's piece:
1. The effects of our education neglect and globalization have played out over decades. They did not just happen in the last few years, and they cannot be cured in the next few years.
2. Globalization and education are inextricably linked. This process is not new, but it is accelerating. A century ago we were a nation of farmers. This century we must educate all of our children for a higher value added and more competitive world of jobs, involving less and less manual labor.
3. This is not so much social Darwinism as it is economic Darwinism. We will eat what we can produce, both individually and collectively. Our institutions, public and private, need to invest in all of our capabilities, and public education is at the foundation. There is no insulation from global competition ultimately, so we need to prepare for more of it.
4. Friedman’s reference to entrepreneurship does not suggest to me that everyone should start a business. However, growing more entrepreneurs would surely result in more competitive jobs in more growing businesses. In the sense of looking out for our own prosperity, we are all entrepreneurs.
Todd Martin
I had to comment Ellen on your line saying:
"One wonders how Mr. Friedman would have managed as an independent entrepreneur without the power of the Times to back him."
To remind you - he managed to get that job. Through hustle or whatnot he succeeded in getting the backing of the Times, and it wasn't simply given to him.
Friedman's point is a known one: Education is what builds a strong nation and America has forgotten about education. You can argue with those points, but you choose to argue with whether one can educate for a freer kind of thinking, and that is a more tenuous position to take. Yes, education will influence how entrepreneurial you are and how much you can think outside the box.
For example, a discussion on whether education can "persuade" one to become a genius: http://www.pandalous.com/topic/can_you_choose_genius
I usually respond to one of Friedman's hokey, easily digestible arguments he uses to describe complicated, nuanced issues with one of my own: "well, duh."
Notably, the posted comments on nytimes.com were so unrelievedly negative that the editors weren't able to find a single one for their "editors' selections." It's difficult to imagine how anyone takes this pompous, intellectually lightweight windbag seriously for even a moment.
This notion that a sound education is unquestionably linked to a sound employment is not always true, and is problematic. A sound education makes us better citizens. That should be its only purpose. If because of our better sense of self and citizenship we are able to procure stable employment or businesses then, Hooray! But I am terribly uncomfortable with our institutions of higher learning becoming over-priced vocational schools, relentlessly churning out degrees for young people who know nothing about the world, but everything about manipulation and money-making schemes. What a scary prospect, indeed!