Education

[Deleted member 848]

I know you're being smart. Not that you aren't smart. Nobody says that.

But the fact is, American healthcare is and has long been the greatest engine of technical progress on planet earth. Because of capitalist incentive which persisted despite ever-increasing incursions of government regs. and mandated management overlording.

Without the political contest for converting this once-free market into a great Cartel run by the biggest lobbyist crew, just imagine how much better off we would be.

You will soon find that your weightless platitudes don’t resonate with most of the American population, and it will only get worse as the years progress. 30-40% of American bankruptcies are declared due to medical cost expenditures.

No one cares about your pontifications on the success of capitalism when Americans are dying trying to ration their insulin. A very tone-deaf thing to say.

 

[One Brow]

I won't argue with your opinion on this since you've learned a lot from your google searches. I've led successful innovation programs for a fortune 500 company and the largest private company in the US, am currently Chief Commercial Officer leading an innovation team for a chemtech startup, I've taught highly rated corporate classes in innovation, and taken graduate courses in innovation from a top B school. So, ironically, I am an innovation "institutional insider" who may have bought into the dogma, and you are (presumably) an institutional outsider who may have better ideas. You could be the person who disrupts disruptive innovation! How very cool and very meta would that be! : -)

I've always acknowledged expertise.

To economists, luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods. Food is a necessity good. Viagara is a luxury good. Cars were luxury goods in the early days, even after Ford. Hope that helps to clarify.

Indeed. You were using a different definition of luxury goods than Christensen was.

You are attempting to refute my statement that "Innovation rarely comes from those entrenched in any institution."

I believe that, if you read carefully, you will see I have only questioned its applicability to the field of education.

You dismiss how innovation in education might come from outside the institution of education but you have not explained why you believe this is impossible. Your only argument seems to be that people need to have experience and knowledge to innovate in education, which is both obvious and besides the point.

Now, that's a good question for discussion.
1) There is no "institution of education". There are several educational institutions, but by the time you get to the entities that actually do the teaching, all of them are the size of small or medium startups. Teachers that find new ways to approach material (as long as it seems effective) get encouragement as often as correction(I do things in my math classes that no one else does).
2) There is no product to displace nor market to revolutionize. It's the wrong paradigm.
3) The stakes are high. If you try to disrupt the car market and fail, people can still but the original cars. If you try to disrupt education and fail, you have less-well-educated people.

So I'll side with the guy who literally invented the term "disruptive innovation," remaining open to the idea that institutional education outsiders would likely be the place where successful educational reform might emerge.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

[Miggs]

Haven’t “outside innovators” been a major part of public education for decades now? When was the last time the Sec of Edu was an actual educator? Since at least Reagan, public education has been driven by outside “business” innovators. This has led to more standardized testing, lower teacher morale, greater teacher turnover, higher costs, and arguably worse results. Utah in the past 10 years tried a lawyer as superintendent in Ogden and it was a disaster. He later moved to be the superintendent of the entire state. He sucked so bad that he “retired” after one year.

It has been my experience that those who argue for “outside innovators” in public education rarely have any specific complaints or solutions. They’re just exercising their libertarian attitudes and repeating their anti-government diatribes attempting to sound concerned over education. From what I’ve seen in practice, states and districts that practice “outsider innovation” are merely socializing costs while privatizing profits. Usually into the hands of their friends and family.

For those wondering what I mean, google Howard Stephenson (former senator from Draper) and huge advocate of charter schools. He also had financial stakes in them...

Google former House speaker, Greg Hughes (also from Draper). He was a huge advocate for charters, helped change the way athletes can move around, and served on the board of of Summit Academy in draper (the school his sons played football for). Canyons and Jordan Districts were the first districts in the state that bought software Mastery Connect (based in Draper). Districts were spending millions on software that when I used to work for these districts years ago, didn’t help teachers out nor demonstrated academic improvement in the classroom. But hey, the district “was innovative” and made software designers in Draper wealthy.

Once again, “innovation” in public education typically means hurting unions, more testing on students, and funneling public money into private hands.

Spot on. We had an awful super for three years. She brought in some reading programs that were developed by a company for which she used to work. I’m sure no money passed hands or anything.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

America’s health care system is the most market-based (by a big margin) healthcare system in the developed world.

Not coincidentally, it is also by most metrics the worst healthcare system in the developed world.

As has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, Americans pay the bulk of the world's healthcare costs. If America had a system similar to the countries you are talking about either healthcare costs in all markets would rise, or innovation/research would be drastically reduced.

I think we all agree that the American healthcare system needs some serious reform. It's clear that we disagree on which direction that reform ought to be made in.

 

[babe]

You will soon find that your weightless platitudes don’t resonate with most of the American population, and it will only get worse as the years progress. 30-40% of American bankruptcies are declared due to medical cost expenditures.

No one cares about your pontifications on the success of capitalism when Americans are dying trying to ration their insulin. A very tone-deaf thing to say.

Well, I have learned that dialing up the rhetoric and raising volume and throwing out big words don't really resonate with anyone.

The government managed healthcare systems do more rationing, cost more, and only people who can afford to go shopping for care in the USA get the best care possible.

No doubt having cartels in the business make for more shortages than if there were more suppliers. It's not like we can't get perfectly good insulin from the pigs or make it de novo via more than one protein synthetic method.

Cartels, btw, always do impressive lobbying and trick our legislators to help run competition into the ground.... besides using their revolving door personnel to help suppress competition within the regulatory agencies.

Our fake media cartel and fake education monopoly does create the false narrative for a lot of Americans, but by the time the kids get jobs or work experience they realize they have been duped. Even our immigrants, legal or illegal, generally grow outta the delusions Marxists and their variant stooges have perpetrated.

I predict the truth will win out.

 

[silesian]

Indeed. You were using a different definition of luxury goods than Christensen was.

Nah, you just read a single word in Wikipedia, took it out of context, and then extrapolated to conclusions that he never said. Christensen never said that disruptive innovation did not apply to luxury goods, you said that. He was describing how penetration was initially low for automobiles and threw in an adjective that you got hung up on. The guy is summa *** laude graduate in economics, studied econometrics at Oxford, has a Harvard MBA and worked at Boston Consulting group. I promise you he understands the correct economic definition of luxury goods.

 

[silesian]

Now, that's a good question for discussion.
1) There is no "institution of education". There are several educational institutions, but by the time you get to the entities that actually do the teaching, all of them are the size of small or medium startups. Teachers that find new ways to approach material (as long as it seems effective) get encouragement as often as correction(I do things in my math classes that no one else does).
2) There is no product to displace nor market to revolutionize. It's the wrong paradigm.
3) The stakes are high. If you try to disrupt the car market and fail, people can still but the original cars. If you try to disrupt education and fail, you have less-well-educated people.

1. Mistaking micro innovation at the classroom level instead of looking at systemic structural innovation is your first mistake. Educators operate within the confines of the system and the constraints that are imposed, the indoctrination they receive, the dogma of the culture, etc.
2. You assume that innovation is only for products and not services? Why? Mistake #2.
3. The stakes are high indeed. We are failing today, so we do risk failing more, I guess.

 

[Deleted member 848]

As has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, Americans pay the bulk of the world's healthcare costs. If America had a system similar to the countries you are talking about either healthcare costs in all markets would rise, or innovation/research would be drastically reduced.

I think we all agree that the American healthcare system needs some serious reform. It's clear that we disagree on which direction that reform ought to be made in.

give a concrete description on the direction you think health care reform should go in.

As has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, a) average expenditure on R&D for your typical pharmaceutical company is below 20% of their revenues-- you're just swallowing their propaganda and not critiquing it because the thought of capitalism makes you want to climax.

Secondly, the pharmaceutical industry isn't the reason that American's ******** free market healthcare system is literally last in the developed world-- it's because the administrative costs of allowing multiple insurance companies to exist provide funding for care is a nightmare for health care institutions.

 

[Zombie]

a) average expenditure on R&D for your typical pharmaceutical company is below 20% of their revenues

Out of curiosity, what is the average expenditure on marketing for a typical pharmaceutical company?

 

[One Brow]

Nah, you just read a single word in Wikipedia, took it out of context, and then extrapolated to conclusions that he never said. Christensen never said that disruptive innovation did not apply to luxury goods, you said that. He was describing how penetration was initially low for automobiles and threw in an adjective that you got hung up on. The guy is summa *** laude graduate in economics, studied econometrics at Oxford, has a Harvard MBA and worked at Boston Consulting group. I promise you he understands the correct economic definition of luxury goods.

Still doesn't explain how the quote from Wikipedia said the opposite of what you said about disruptive innovation and the automobile. As I said, I'm open to hearing that the Wikipedia quote is wrong. If it is not, why are you saying one thing and the wiki quote another?

 

[One Brow]

1. Mistaking micro innovation at the classroom level instead of looking at systemic structural innovation is your first mistake. Educators operate within the confines of the system and the constraints that are imposed, the indoctrination they receive, the dogma of the culture, etc.

You didn't address the main point, and are still making the same error in that regard. There is no "the system". There are "the systems". The constraints are not imposed by educators, and usually not by administrators, but by state and local politicians, and they get reviewed on a regular basis for timeliness, appropriateness, etc. To refer to the education received by teachers as "indoctrination" and "dogma" indicates you don't understand the life or mindset of teachers (as a group) in the slightest.

2. You assume that innovation is only for products and not services? Why? Mistake #2.

Educators have been innovating continuously since I was child. Not all innovation is disruptive. If you want to argue that disruptive innovation is the correct paradigm, you'll have to do better than create a false equivalency between disruptive innovation and every type of innovation.

3. The stakes are high indeed. We are failing today, so we do risk failing more, I guess.

Are we failing from a lack of innovative ideas, or from a failure of funding due to the institutional policies that have sidelined the student bodies of may urban and rural areas? How about the negative correlation between stress in life (from food insecurity, crime, etc.) and learning? In areas where the children have less stress and spending is sufficient, the local system compare with any education system in the world. Instead of fixing things that are not broken (what the educators do), try innovating the funding for the distressed schools and communities.

Perhaps that line of thinking is too innovative for you.

I fully believe you're a professional innovator. The level of thinking is about on par for the various innovators that came to Anthem to revolutionize our software development.

 

[LogGrad98]

This thread has split into 2 conversations, kind of funny.

I'm going to start another thread to continue the discussion around healthcare and the pharma industry. I found an interesting short article showing some of the problems with the industry.