Learning to Keep Learning: THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Learning to Keep Learning
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 13, 2006

Our education system should be focused on producing more workers — from the U.P.S. driver to the software engineer — who can think creatively.

I recently attended an Asia Society education seminar in Beijing, during which we heard Chinese educators talk about their “new national strategy.” It’s to make China an “innovation country” — with enough indigenous output to advance China “into the rank of innovation-oriented countries by 2020,” as Shang Yong, China’s vice minister of science and technology, put it.

I listened to this with mixed emotions. Part of me said: “Gosh, wouldn’t it be nice to have a government that was so focused on innovation — instead of one that is basically anti-science.” My other emotion was skepticism. Oh, you know the line: Great Britain dominated the 19th century, America dominated the 20th and now China is going to dominate the 21st. It’s game over.

Sorry, but I am not ready to cede the 21st century to China yet.

No question, China has been able to command an impressive effort to end illiteracy, greatly increasing its number of high school grads and new universities. But I still believe it is very hard to produce a culture of innovation in a country that censors Google — which for me is a proxy for curtailing people’s ability to imagine and try anything they want. You can command K-12 education. But you can’t command innovation. Rigor and competence, without freedom, will take China only so far. China will have to find a way to loosen up, without losing control, if it wants to be a truly innovative nation.

But while China can’t thrive without changing a lot more, neither can we. Ask yourself this: If the Iraq war had not dominated our politics, what would our last election have been about? It would have been about this question: Why should any employer anywhere in the world pay Americans to do highly skilled work — if other people, just as well educated, are available in less developed countries for half our wages?

--MORE--


REBUTTAL

Dec 13, 2006

The Great Lie: Education Will Save Us

By Jonathan Tasini

Over and over again, the people of our country hear that the solution to inadequate wages, disappearing heath care, vanishing pensions, and staggering personal debt is quite simple: get educated. It may sound right but it's utterly phony.

Hardly a day goes by when politicians or pundits don't slip in a plug for a "smarter" workforce. Today, Thomas Friedman steps up with his own non-reality-based observations. The most astounding part of Friedman's column, which muses about China's education system versus our own, comes when he asks: "Ask yourself this: If the Iraq war had not dominated our politics, what would our last election have been about? It would have been about this question: Why should any employer anywhere in the world pay Americans to do highly skilled work -- if other people, just as well educated, are available in less developed countries for half our wages?"

Tasini's diary :: ::
Yes, that should be the question. But, Friedman's answer is remarkable, though probably only to people who live in the real world. "In a globally integrated economy, our workers will get paid a premium only if they or their firms offer a uniquely innovative product or service, which demands a skilled and creative labor force to conceive, design, market and manufacture -- and a labor force that is constantly able to keep learning," he writes.

Yes, employers around the world are moving work around the world in search of the lowest wage possible--thanks in large part to so-called "free trade," which Freidman has been flogging for years in his column. Wages, not skills or education, are the most important issue facing workers throughout the globe. The disparity is so huge that American workers, no matter how smart they get, will never be able to compete against workers in other countries--unless, of course, Americans are willing to accept a drastic decline in their standard of living.

Democrats have fallen into this trap, too, because it sounds so easy. One of my absolute favorite Democrats, Rep. George Miller, appeared last night on CNN's Lou Dobbs, to talk about the party's plan to cut interest rates in half for college financial assistance. He said, "Well, our priorities are to have a high-quality public schools for our children to make sure that they have access to an affordable college education, that they can then go on to a competitive workplace in this globalized world and they can fully participate in that workplace with fairness in the work place, and then, at the end of the day, they can secure their pensions and their retirements and their dreams."

Though I've written repeatedly over the years about education as a phony solution, I also understand its allure. First, it appeals to our inner child because, after all, so many of us were told, throughout our school years, that if you didn't do your homework, you wouldn't get into college.

Second, and perhaps more important, it's an easier solution to grasp. Most of us still think of China and India and other "Third World" countries as places where massive plants turn out lower-skilled products (assembly-line electronics, clothes and other durable goods). Heck, people assume, let them have that work and we'll just fatten up our brains and corner the market making the higher-end stuff like airplanes and biotechnology products.

Surprise. China is well on its way to making products up and down the skill level--at a fraction of the labor cost. In his book "The Chinese Century," Oded Shenkar writes, "China's goal, and that of its government is not merely to catch up with the major industrialized powers but to overpass them. No other developing country has sets its sights so high, and none...has laid such a detailed road map to take it there."

Third, focusing on education means you don't have to wrestle with the real challenge: corporate power. Offering cheaper education (personally, I advocate a free, four-year education for every person willing to work their first post-graduation year for a non-profit community group) is a whole lot easier than putting an end to so-called "free trade," imposing some community investment demands on the flows of capital and demanding worldwide minimum standards that end the most ferocious competition based solely on wages.

Education is a wonderful thing. Learning new ideas nourishes the human mind and keeps our spirits alive. I'm all for teachers and schools.

But, education is a cruel lie if it becomes the answer to the challenge of global competition. It's insulting to workers to feed them the line that they are just too dumb to get a fairly compensated job. It isn't their fault. And until we are willing to confront corporate power, people may hang diplomas on their walls of their homes even if they can't feed their families.