I'm gonna go with "probably not".<p>The article starts with a standard argument that schools suck, then launches into a libertarian utopia forecast. I'm not sure how you can have both a information economy AND people who can't put in the time at a school to learn.<p>Schools aren't some evil conspiracy to teach conformance, they're the only way to teach basic info to lots of kids. And if kids can't sit through it long enough to learn, the majority won't self teach either, no matter how much you want them to. So what do those people do?<p>There are other models for schooling, but covering classic reading/writing/math/history is still pretty important, and modern schools do a reasonable job of providing that the majority of kids.
The lead sentence is<p><i>Middle-class kids are taught from an early age that they should work hard and finish school. Yet 3 out of 10 students dropped out</i><p>Anyone catch the logical and rhetorical flaw ?<p>First, we talk about how MIDDLE class kids are taught not to drop out.<p>Then we seemlessly move to <i>all</i> kids.<p>And...surprise! Some of them drop out.<p>Because, duh!, not all kids are middle class kids.<p>After reading that much stupid in the first half of the first sentence I stopped reading the article.
If I were asked (as the author here was) to put together a piece on "10 ideas for the next 10 years" as part of a series subtitled "a thinker's guide to the most important trends of the new decade" - and for a national magazine to boot - I would at least <i>try</i> to make it tight and coherent, backed up by logical thought and good examples.<p>In this article, the author nowhere even states the theme he is trying to develop - instead, he presents a grab-bag of under-developed ideas, many of them cliched.<p>If you read the piece itself, I challenge you - quick now - to state its principal theme.<p>Here is my best guess: "Young people of all political persuasions are today increasingly rejecting middle-class ideals of school and work in favor of new forms of communitarian living by which they are returning to the soil and are otherwise seeking to escape the reach of nanny-state government."<p>This is just a guess cobbled together from fragments scattered throughout this piece.<p>What are those fragments?<p>Within a few paragraphs (about 1,000 words), we have a jumble of ideas that includes: 30% school drop-out rates; educational stagnation; projections of "fiscal doom;" jobless recovery; New Deal programs about to "starve;" sputtering industrial agriculture; millions of families living "off the grid;" food-distribution systems based on ancient Mayan know-how; communes and co-ops avoiding the nanny state; bourgeois rebels; exploding home schools; self-sufficient vertical farms built from scrap; an underground economy using barter/virtual currencies; libertarian "hacktivists; ever-increasing productivity levels; a surge in home jobs that will revive suburbs that are today "ghost towns;" fewer private homes and more "cohousing communities;" "gated communities" effectively seceding from their municipalities to pursue their own view of the good life; "broadband socialism;" a "new individualism on the left and the right; "freeganism;" "cage-free" families; and 23-year-olds plotting a cultural insurrection that will knock American society "off its axis."<p>It all makes the head spin (not the ideas themselves, about which I do not comment, but the way in which they are presented). When it is all said and done, who knows what the author really intended? He makes you work really hard to figure it out and then leaves you with a sense that the effort was not really worth it.<p>For some excellent guidelines on good essay writing (in this case, for undergraduates), see this splendid piece that got few HN upvotes when it ran (at an odd time, I think) but sets forth fine guidelines for aspiring students writing in this format: <a href="http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/02/good_writing_in_political_scie.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/02/good_writing_in_politic...</a>.
<i>Imagine a future in which millions of families live off the grid, powering their homes and vehicles with dirt-cheap portable fuel cells.</i><p>Fuel cells are for energy storage, not generation. Something has to make the hydrogen (or hydrocarbon) to power them. Also, fuel cells use platinum as a catalyst. You know, rare expensive stuff that has to be dug out of the ground, processed, and refined before it can be shipped to factories that build fuel cells.<p>Living off the grid would require land for solar cells and/or wind turbines, and energy storage mechanisms for when it's neither sunny nor windy. Building this stuff requires factories (again), raw materials (again), infrastructure, and R&D. A small community can't afford these things. And that's just for basic stuff like electricity and transportation. The small communities could solve this by banding together and contributing resources to a collective pool. Some sort of federated system...<p><i>Faced with the burden of financing the decades-long retirement of aging boomers, many of the young embrace a new underground economy, a largely untaxed archipelago of communes, co-ops, and kibbutzim that passively resist the power of the granny state while building their own little utopias.</i><p>So... what happens to the old people? How do these small communities trade? I'm guessing quite a few will be landlocked. If trade is limited, how do these little utopias have modern medicine? An MRI machine needs to be topped up with liquid helium to maintain its superconducting coils (which are manufactured in factories-blah blah blah). Contrast agents use rare elements like gadolinium.<p>The writer doesn't seem to realize just how interconnected the world economy is. Almost nothing I own was made anywhere near where I live. I can't start my day without touching something built at least 1000 miles away.
This should be titled "How I learned to stop being afraid and love the new upcoming mad max world."<p>I wonder what those new and exciting jobs will be in that post apocalyptic world the author pines for. Sexual slavery? Hunting rats for meat and fur? The technically inclined can scavenge parts from rusting machines built in the magical old times and try to fashion some kind of working vehicles out of them. Maybe the more artistically inclined can try being jesters to the local warlord.<p>The relative prosperity of our current lives depends on the incredible interconnectedness of society which allows high efficiencies by having people specialise and become very efficient in some very narrow areas of expertise. Just think of an ordinary $600 computer and imagine the tens or hundreds of thousands of engineers whose specialised knowledge went into making it. It is only a highly complex and interconnected society that can come up with something like that.<p>And if most people start "living off the grid" or disconnecting from society, or if we stop training our children how to live in society (which is what school is supposed to be for), you better get ready for types of poverty that you have never imagined even in your worst nightmares.<p>Oh and if everybody starts dropping out of school and society, good luck coming up with those "dirt cheap fuel cells."<p>It is very disturbing how a lot of people are getting a bigger and bigger hard on for some kind of an Armageddon event.
Reads like a concept for a Cory Doctorow novel to me.<p>I dislike that the author is simply stating all these amazing and utopian things that are going to happen without much in the way of facts to back it up. It sounds like his dream more than anything concrete.
I often rate articles on "stupidities per paragraph" or even, in extreme cases, "stupidities per sentence". This is the first article I've read that can be accurately described with "stupidities per character".
I don't think the author realizes how expensive it is to abandon society. I certainly would love to live in the middle of the forest with my own little hobby farm and pasture (and internet connection, of course) but for me to continue to work in a tech field, even remotely, I need things from the outside, like shingles, nails, plywood, hard drives. All together I probably need about $100k to $400k, depending on what type of living conditions I want, and that is with me still working as a knowledge worker on contract.<p>"Encrypted Digital Currencies" psshh. If the courts are not their to enforce ownership, the currencies will never take hold. It my as well read "Encrypted Digital Monopoly Money". The only type of currency that could possibly hold value for an semi-extended enough period of time would be some really stable MMORPG, but even there I'm grasping at straws.
Everyone I know who leads the kind of lifestyle this article is touting is a drop out, yes. Trouble is, they dropped out of grad school, not high school.
<i>Yet 3 out of 10 students dropped out of high school</i><p>I hate this statistic. I've known several people that dropped out of high school to get a GED instead. (It was faster for them and they were sick of school.) Others had to drop out of school because their family kicked them out of their house at 18. Both of them got GEDs later.
While the author's analysis of the current situation is fairly accurate, his predictions seem to me to be wildly off.<p>There's a pretty strong movement going on, bringing scientific method to teaching. It's chronicled in a great NYT article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html...</a><p>Basically it boils down to:<p>1. Find good teachers, based on how much their students improve. (Students of the top 5% of teachers improve test scores <i>a full year</i> more per year than students of the bottom 5%).<p>2. Analyze what the good teachers do that works better than what other teachers do. (For a small example: Stand still while giving instructions: moving around distracts).<p>3. Teach these techniques to other teachers, and analyze the results.<p>This process, if scaled, seems to me to have far more potential for improving the current system, than any wild-eyed tech-mediated vision of home-schooling [not to knock home schooling: it works great, but it ain't gonna scale to anywhere near a majority of the population].
All the nonsense aside I think it's true that people are no longer happy with "one size fits all" kinds of policies and institutions. This is not a bad thing and is simply one of the byproducts of improving technology that empowers individuals to pick and choose what fits them best be it education, food, clothes, etc.
I'm still amused by liberal arts majors who somehow think that you can't work in the technical fields without a degree. Sure, a degree helps, but if you know what you are doing, it's not required.<p>Now, I know some really awesome people who went to college, and claim that they learned a lot there, I'm not saying it doesn't have value. hell, all other things being equal, I'll pick the applicant with a degree over the dropout, when I have the chance. But I also know many programmers and SysAdmins who didn't go to college, and a few who didn't finish high school. We don't need to live 'off the grid' mad max style. Not having a degree means that you will need to do real work for retail wages, for a while, but once you have experience, you get to upgrade to real wages.
It took me approximately sixty seconds on Google to bring up a page from the Census Bureau, breaking down income according to education level:<p><a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/perinc/new03_001.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/perinc/new03...</a><p>The median earnings of an American over 25 with less than a 9th-grade education is $18,180. For a high-school diploma or GED, it’s $27,963. For a bachelor’s degree (“for a lot of them, an overpriced status marker and little else”, says Salam), it’s $48,097.<p>In the sample from this survey, the folks with less than a 9th-grade education represented about 5% of the total; does Salam really have any evidence that 5% of the US adult population lives cheerfully off subsistance agriculture and cryptocash?
This article is too rooted in the middle class perspective for my tastes. To me the education system isn't failing these kids -- it's the other way around. They goto pretty good/safe schools and simply don't want the education being offered because they think they can beat the system. Probably many of them can because they have a safety net that allows them to reconsider their options down the road. It's the poor minorities who have dramatically higher drop out rates we should be considered about. If you don't have many opportunities in life you should maximize the "free" public education you can get and make the most of it.
The problem I see with this, is that the most talented middle class folks are still employed. It's these talented people who have the drive, creativity, and resourcefulness to home-school well, and to build new communities. Until and unless they are out on their butts, I don't think we will see this type of positive societal transformation.<p>It's likely we'll see more: crime and despair, and that all of those unemployed former worker-drones that the school system wrought, will increasingly look to the government for subsidies.
Rather doomy for my taste, but I think we are heading towards a complex future something like this - closer to cyberpunk than to Star Trek. Even though the current recession is a temporary affair, there are good reasons to be concerned about growing technological unemployment and its effects in the next few decades, especially upon white collar "knowledge workers".
It's couched in pretty exciting/revolutionary/utopian language, but are the ideas really more likely to become mainstream now than at any time in the past? Seems like today's spin on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on,_tune_in,_drop_out</a>
Very good article.
I am surprized Times and CNN published it, given their track record for crap.
We better get ready for the future. Go with the flow or risk being left behind with the old desintegrating structures. Same thing for our belief structures. Hehe.. this one is gonna be a biggie.