I do not consider myself an expert on K-12 education, but I have opinions. (You can find some of my thoughts on Stuart Nager’s blog.)  But, I do understand undergraduate and graduate education.  And, over the past 30 years, I have seen changes that scare the bejesus out of me.

Let’s start with some simple calculations.  When I went to college, we needed 144 credits to graduate with a Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering.  It’s why several programs required 5 years and not the traditional 4.  (Please note that this degree involved a series of laboratories- from what I recall, 10 or so.  Each laboratory credit earned 1 credit for each 3 hours in the lab. So, the number of class hours was closer to 2500, instead of 2000 over four years. )

And, when I went to college, most chemical engineers ended up working for the petrochemical or food industry.  There was no biochemical or biomedical industries to prepare students to service.  And, now that there are such fields, the graduation requirements have dropped to 120 credits.  Which means either fewer ChemE courses, fewer physics, fewer mathematics, fewer cross-engineering (we took EE, metallurgy, mechanical, and aeronautical courses)- or fewer humanities electives. (Yes, they also have fewer laboratory classes!) Clearly, less prepared students for the changes they will encounter during their careers.

But, the key thing that is missing is the focus on considering the really new issues- the need to create, invent, and discover.  And, it’s not just ChemE’s. It’s true for scientists, business folks, and other engineers.  New concepts can only be developed by a prepared mind- one that is open to all sorts of information.

Places like 3M, Google, and IBM recognize this.  Innovations created in the lab are given a chance in the marketplace.  But, we need our schools to do so, too.  It’s not getting the perfect score on exams.  It’s learning HOW to learn and see the small things- and then being able to capitalize upon them.

I hate multiple guess exams.  They prove nothing.  But, they are easy to grade (there’s even automated machinery), so they are used extensively. And, more importantly, these exams must be written well- more carefully than most practitioners achieve.

I remember one of my better teachers- Herbert Kamins- who was not as clear as he had thought on a multiple choice exam.  Yes, there was the answer he wanted- but he offered another choice that could also be construed as correct.  Given a two page explanation as to why that other answer was acceptable afforded me (and three others who made that choice) a corrected score.  The point wasn’t the score- it was that we thought the question through, developed logical reasoning, and came to a conclusion that was valid- even if not the one desired.

This is how our businesses, leaders, and managers must operate.  There is no perfect way to develop new products or offer services.  There are too many choices.  We make a series of small calculations to discover what works best- and capitalize on our successes.  (Of course, we must recognize failures quickly, to insure that our costs do not exceed our ability to recover.)

If we don’t tolerate risks- and learn from every failure- we will be left with stagnation and decline.  From that, we rarely recover.

Share this: