It is hard to find good videos on bag boxing. This is one of the better ones with combination punches, some exercise, and enough cardio to get a workout. I tried it and will likely do it again. They did a pretty solid job. While videos are great for home practice there is nothing like going to the gym.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
Mental Diversity in Higher Education
A few higher education industries define the goals of education for the rest of us. As "gold standard" institutions they have created the mental framework for other universities. Whether that is through example, political capital, or the type of people they have graduated, the rest of the world seems to want to emulate their success.
An article in the Maine Wire discusses what is diversity of thought. It isn't what you might think but it can have an influence on university outcomes if it reflects the student population but yet still changes the way student's think.
Higher education isn't about creating clones but more about creating independent thinkers that view the world in new ways. Having faculty from the same indoctrinated educational background does student's a disservice. They are not exposed to new and unique ideas or ways of thinking needed in the Information Age.
The more "educated" we get the more difficulty we have coming up with unique ideas. Our thought process follow the paths that others have blazed before us. While this works great most of the time it isn't beneficial all the time. The next economy will need people that can reconstruct data in more holistic frameworks.
In business we learn diverse teams help generate the most unique and useful ideas. In higher education we learn there are predefined ways of solving problems. Geniuses often violate these predefined ways of thinking but in higher education we still shun from full diverse creativity. Making sure we have people of different backgrounds and thinking patterns leads to a better reflection of the full scope of human intelligence and problem solving creativity.
An article in the Maine Wire discusses what is diversity of thought. It isn't what you might think but it can have an influence on university outcomes if it reflects the student population but yet still changes the way student's think.
Higher education isn't about creating clones but more about creating independent thinkers that view the world in new ways. Having faculty from the same indoctrinated educational background does student's a disservice. They are not exposed to new and unique ideas or ways of thinking needed in the Information Age.
The more "educated" we get the more difficulty we have coming up with unique ideas. Our thought process follow the paths that others have blazed before us. While this works great most of the time it isn't beneficial all the time. The next economy will need people that can reconstruct data in more holistic frameworks.
In business we learn diverse teams help generate the most unique and useful ideas. In higher education we learn there are predefined ways of solving problems. Geniuses often violate these predefined ways of thinking but in higher education we still shun from full diverse creativity. Making sure we have people of different backgrounds and thinking patterns leads to a better reflection of the full scope of human intelligence and problem solving creativity.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Getting Small Towns to Connect to Higher Economic Growth
Rural and small towns are often disconnected from the growth of larger cities through geographic distance, cultural difference and industry supply needs. The cause of this over the decades has been partly due to globalization and through industry shifts. There are ways to "reconnect" them to the economy.
1.) Resources: Many of these towns formed around the extraction or mining of resources. With globalization raw resources were cheaper overseas and declines in farming, mining, and other industries started to dwindle the economic base of these regions. Rejuvenating these industries will allow for growth in these towns and an influx of new people.
2.) Suppliers: Just like natural resources, small production also moved overseas and companies in the U.S. assemble plug and play parts built overseas. Potential micro manufacturing facilities are rotting away as companies do not offer start-up support for small towns that need these industries.
3.)Virtual: As online work increases there may not be as much need for closeness of workers in some industries and occupations. Virtual work would avoid forcing people to move to bigger cities. People could work at home, live, buy and shop in town.
4.) Environmental: Some people enjoy small towns and the outdoors much more than living in a city. There are families that desire to raise their kids in close knit communities. Finding entrepreneurs and professionals places in rural America can be helpful.
1.) Resources: Many of these towns formed around the extraction or mining of resources. With globalization raw resources were cheaper overseas and declines in farming, mining, and other industries started to dwindle the economic base of these regions. Rejuvenating these industries will allow for growth in these towns and an influx of new people.
2.) Suppliers: Just like natural resources, small production also moved overseas and companies in the U.S. assemble plug and play parts built overseas. Potential micro manufacturing facilities are rotting away as companies do not offer start-up support for small towns that need these industries.
3.)Virtual: As online work increases there may not be as much need for closeness of workers in some industries and occupations. Virtual work would avoid forcing people to move to bigger cities. People could work at home, live, buy and shop in town.
4.) Environmental: Some people enjoy small towns and the outdoors much more than living in a city. There are families that desire to raise their kids in close knit communities. Finding entrepreneurs and professionals places in rural America can be helpful.
Monday, March 19, 2018
Economics Needs New Theories Not Bounded by Pure Empiricism
Empiricism is like looking at a problem with a microscope to prove a phenomenons existence. As we dig deeper and deeper we start to forget about the overall framework by which these discoveries are found. We may have lots of empiricism but not enough new theories to explain these ideas. A great article on Theory and Empiricism in the Bloomberg helps define this problem better.
I've been taking this Macro-Economics class at Harvard to try and understand the inner workings of economics from the experts. What I have noticed is that there are lots of formulas, data, numbers, and relations between variables. Yet, when I read the news it is noted that we are often wrong about economic outcomes.
Why is this a problem?
Well...it means we aren't explaining something as well as we should. If we had a strong grasp on the inner economic workings we would be more right than wrong. Listening to a program on the news, please don't ask which one, an economist came on and said economists are sort of right 20-maybe 40% of the time. The projections are often off.
Ok....that just sort of highlights a problem.
If we are not often right, this means there is plenty of reasons to generate new theories. As the economy changes and more information becomes available we should continuously update and adjust our existing theories; or change them all together. But "flipping the switch" on theories is very difficult and risky academically so people prefer to focus on what they can show empirically.
I think this problem has become more prevalent because over the past hundred years we were led by a few great thinkers. Most of us are followers, while only a few people are leaders. The rest of the economists just sort of started prescribing to a particular school of thought and "prove" little pieces of the theories without looking at the overall picture. The advent of empiricism limited our ability to just think about the possibilities and explore ideas freely.
Paradigm shifts happen when something doesn't work well and something new comes along to replace it. New theories are often criticized heavily but as they begin to be accepted and reviewed they gain "believers". There will be those who refuse to accept the new theory and those that won't. The overall review, challenge, and eventual acceptance of a new theory can be brutal on the theorist who feels they must justify every question.
Our indoctrinated beliefs is what limits our ability to come up with better theories.
Philosophers and theorists should explore the potential of new ideas but should not be criticized for "thinking out of the box". Maybe not every idea is a good one, or can be supported empirically, but higher academia should be about exploring new ideas. The microscope can come later and empirical evidence can help show whether or not these ideas will have long-term merit. We begin our early careers learning but should spend the rest of it unlearning ideas to free our thoughts and be creative.
I've been taking this Macro-Economics class at Harvard to try and understand the inner workings of economics from the experts. What I have noticed is that there are lots of formulas, data, numbers, and relations between variables. Yet, when I read the news it is noted that we are often wrong about economic outcomes.
Why is this a problem?
Well...it means we aren't explaining something as well as we should. If we had a strong grasp on the inner economic workings we would be more right than wrong. Listening to a program on the news, please don't ask which one, an economist came on and said economists are sort of right 20-maybe 40% of the time. The projections are often off.
Ok....that just sort of highlights a problem.
If we are not often right, this means there is plenty of reasons to generate new theories. As the economy changes and more information becomes available we should continuously update and adjust our existing theories; or change them all together. But "flipping the switch" on theories is very difficult and risky academically so people prefer to focus on what they can show empirically.
I think this problem has become more prevalent because over the past hundred years we were led by a few great thinkers. Most of us are followers, while only a few people are leaders. The rest of the economists just sort of started prescribing to a particular school of thought and "prove" little pieces of the theories without looking at the overall picture. The advent of empiricism limited our ability to just think about the possibilities and explore ideas freely.
Paradigm shifts happen when something doesn't work well and something new comes along to replace it. New theories are often criticized heavily but as they begin to be accepted and reviewed they gain "believers". There will be those who refuse to accept the new theory and those that won't. The overall review, challenge, and eventual acceptance of a new theory can be brutal on the theorist who feels they must justify every question.
Our indoctrinated beliefs is what limits our ability to come up with better theories.
Philosophers and theorists should explore the potential of new ideas but should not be criticized for "thinking out of the box". Maybe not every idea is a good one, or can be supported empirically, but higher academia should be about exploring new ideas. The microscope can come later and empirical evidence can help show whether or not these ideas will have long-term merit. We begin our early careers learning but should spend the rest of it unlearning ideas to free our thoughts and be creative.
Non-Traditional Education Leaders Contribution to Universities
Non-traditional education leaders have something to add to higher academia. There was a transition outlined in the Chronicle of Higher Education when universities stopped focusing on their missions and more into big business. This transition has sparked a different mindset in universities and allowed some to grow much larger but may have impacted the focus of these universities.
Have you ever wondered why we build huge college arenas and not science centers or better academics? Part of the reason might be that sports pays money and acts much like advertising. Proving your academic merit is much harder than hiring high quality sports players.
It is much like a business.
Universities need revenue and state taxes sometimes create a budget shortfall. However, so does having too many administrators and not enough academics on hand. Sometimes universities get top heavy and more and more salary and power concentrates into administration than it does in teaching or science.
Not sure how I feel about it. Large universities are great for pooling resources if they are able to teach students useful skills as well as generate new knowledge. I love sports and I do believe they have a place in universities but should not be the major focus of universities.
Universities also need to balance their budgets. That seems to be getting more difficult so it is hard to blame them for doing what they need to to make ends meet. Sometimes I think this is of their own self making. Being as it is, the current model seems to be running at its maximum is likely to change as universities seek to overcome their budget constraints.
This is where non-traditional education leaders are needed. People of different backgrounds, some business backgrounds, and from different industries might just allow for new creative ways of doing things. Sometimes we get stuck in our way of thinking and universities don't adapt to the market as fast as they should. Diversity of thought and background might just help get new ideas to leak in.
Have you ever wondered why we build huge college arenas and not science centers or better academics? Part of the reason might be that sports pays money and acts much like advertising. Proving your academic merit is much harder than hiring high quality sports players.
It is much like a business.
Universities need revenue and state taxes sometimes create a budget shortfall. However, so does having too many administrators and not enough academics on hand. Sometimes universities get top heavy and more and more salary and power concentrates into administration than it does in teaching or science.
Not sure how I feel about it. Large universities are great for pooling resources if they are able to teach students useful skills as well as generate new knowledge. I love sports and I do believe they have a place in universities but should not be the major focus of universities.
Universities also need to balance their budgets. That seems to be getting more difficult so it is hard to blame them for doing what they need to to make ends meet. Sometimes I think this is of their own self making. Being as it is, the current model seems to be running at its maximum is likely to change as universities seek to overcome their budget constraints.
This is where non-traditional education leaders are needed. People of different backgrounds, some business backgrounds, and from different industries might just allow for new creative ways of doing things. Sometimes we get stuck in our way of thinking and universities don't adapt to the market as fast as they should. Diversity of thought and background might just help get new ideas to leak in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)