Life is full of choices. We choose activities based on our needs and preferences. Many of us don't create a full life and don't have horizons much larger than our backgrounds. I come from a small place in the world and I can say that about 60% of people have never traveled more than 2 hours drive from our hometown. But that isn't really the issue, it is the inability to explore those activities that cover the major needs for a healthy life.
I see there there are many needs but to have a well rounded life it is important to fulfill these few:
1.) Social: We need to socialize and having meaningful relationships. Lots of these will be just acquaintances but they still fulfill a purpose.
2.) Physical: The need to get out and move and improve ones physical abilities.
3.) Meaningful work: The need to do something we enjoy in a way that still pays our bills.
4.) Creative: An outlet on being creative and doing unique things.
5.) Intellectual: Spur our thinking and our brains.
6.) Purpose: Some time of overriding goal and theme to our lives.
If we work a little on each of these aspects we will have a well-rounded and meaningful life that is worth living. Going to work each day, going home, and watching reruns is not a full life. It is called a "rut" that limits our ability to grow as a person.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Friday, March 23, 2018
Low Impact but High Cardio Workouts
Low impact cardio is great when you are older so you don't damage your joints and create injuries. What I have noticed is that it can be difficult to get solid cardio with many low impact routines. However, this video does a pretty good job at it. I'm not a big fan of fitness bands but they are convenient and easy to use.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Technical Skills Needed in Marketing Curriculum
In the best case scenario college students should graduate with the ability to take on jobs as quickly as possible. This is an ideal we should continuously seek to achieve. However, there will always be a need for corporate training as education is often based on more broad skills. There seems to be a market need for ensuring that some technical skills are learned within the course so that needed job positions can be obtained.
A study of marketing skills needed for entry, middle and senior level positions found that there are differences in the skills needed between these career phases (Schleel & Harich, 2010). Of the 500 marketing jobs reviewed from Monster.com there was increased emphasis on ensuring graduates have increased technical skills among all levels. Entry level candidates needed more skills than marketing knowledge while more senior graduates needed to analyze databases and use industry specific software. Oral, written and team building skills were also important.
Ensuring that curriculum uses some of the most common marketing tools is important for giving students exposure to these systems for use when they finally work within their field. Theoretical knowledge is also important but becomes more important at higher levels of one's career. Entry level employees are doing basic "foot work" while more senior employees finding ways to use information to raise marketing effectiveness.
Schleel, R. & Harich, K. (2010). Knowledge and Skill Requirements for Marketing Jobs in the 21st Century. Journal of Marketing Education 32(3) 341–352
A study of marketing skills needed for entry, middle and senior level positions found that there are differences in the skills needed between these career phases (Schleel & Harich, 2010). Of the 500 marketing jobs reviewed from Monster.com there was increased emphasis on ensuring graduates have increased technical skills among all levels. Entry level candidates needed more skills than marketing knowledge while more senior graduates needed to analyze databases and use industry specific software. Oral, written and team building skills were also important.
Ensuring that curriculum uses some of the most common marketing tools is important for giving students exposure to these systems for use when they finally work within their field. Theoretical knowledge is also important but becomes more important at higher levels of one's career. Entry level employees are doing basic "foot work" while more senior employees finding ways to use information to raise marketing effectiveness.
Schleel, R. & Harich, K. (2010). Knowledge and Skill Requirements for Marketing Jobs in the 21st Century. Journal of Marketing Education 32(3) 341–352
Rejuvenating Higher Education Institutions as Places of Greater Thought Through Student Confidence
Students don't always come into college confident of themselves, the material, or their abilities. Nevertheless, they may have something important to say even if they don't feel confident in saying it. Empowering students to take control over their academic learning experience and personalizing it to themself is important. There are some things that professors should never never do in the learning process and that includes brow beating opinions they disagree with.
Decades ago I was taking an experimental psychology course in graduate school. We were at a round table with the professor discussing issues as they relate to genetic enhancement and adjustment. Most of the conversation was around how we are now capable of impacting the genetic abilities of some people and fix some of the diseases that people suffer from.
We then began to discuss the issue of ethical and legal concerns of doing so a thought popped into my head. The professor, a polished psychologist, was adamantly advocating that ethics and morality have no place in science. I raised my hand because I saw a different point of view on the topic. She called on me to talk for a moment.
I cleared my throat and said, "I agree that it is helpful and important to change those genetic deficiencies that cause people to suffer but I'm not sure it is wise to change the genetics that don't live and die with the person receiving treatment." You can tell by her changed tone she didn't like what I said but in an attempt to "pretend" to be egalitarian she asked me to explain.
Collecting my thoughts, I stated that a few generations, or even hundreds of years down the road, we don't know the full impact of these genetic changes on the species. That as we breed and have hundreds of grand and great grand children these implanted genetic changes may cause additional problems down the road as our environment changes. There isn't a way to tell what would happen so we should not run hastily into making changes to DNA that could be passed on.
Most of the table started to agree with my beliefs but the professor seemed to get visible upset and began to be more confrontational in her discussion. The tone and demeanor switched from an open dialogue to an intellectual assault. She then challenged me further stating, "Do you have any idea what your saying, do you have any facts to support your arguments or are you just talking to talk.".
In retort, I responded that no one has facts because it hasn't happened yet. She doesn't have facts either. We can't contain everything in science and we can't control all the variables. So what I am saying is a legitimate concern. We don't know if people will die more from health issue because of the long-term genetic changes we make today, or they will turn out purple, lose pigment, or die of diabetes because we changed something today.
There is wisdom in natural selection and if we don't know the long term consequences then we should be careful about making inter-generational decisions that could impact the lives of people later on. Sure...lets make changes that solve a problem for this person but lets not make genetic changes for the next 10 generations. Genetic science was still in its infancy and it is still underdeveloped.
Because most of the students wanted an A, and view a professor as a authority figure, their viewpoints switched back to supporting the arguments of the professor. Yet, now as a professor, I realize how wrong she was and that the concerns I raised then are part of our current discussion and will likely be part of future discussion on inter-generational genetic enhancements. I walked away from that class thinking I said something terrible, but now I realized I was right for saying so.
Universities should be about empowerment people and helping students come to their own conclusions. Questions are for drawing out greater depth in knowledge but not about forcing people to adhere to a particular dogma for fear of getting a poor grade. That is called "group think" and is part of why we sometimes fail to solve important problems. Raising confidence in students and providing a solid learning environment is helpful in developing fully functional people. That lesson has taught me how even "educated" people can be limited in their thinking. Piling more layers of regurgitated information on an already warped mindset only helps people confirm a false sense of superiority. It isn't about the professor or their viewpoints. It is about the students. Bringing back higher education into a open dialogue where great ideas are pondered is part of the solution of saving higher education from becoming irrelevant as a place where higher thinking occurs.
Decades ago I was taking an experimental psychology course in graduate school. We were at a round table with the professor discussing issues as they relate to genetic enhancement and adjustment. Most of the conversation was around how we are now capable of impacting the genetic abilities of some people and fix some of the diseases that people suffer from.
We then began to discuss the issue of ethical and legal concerns of doing so a thought popped into my head. The professor, a polished psychologist, was adamantly advocating that ethics and morality have no place in science. I raised my hand because I saw a different point of view on the topic. She called on me to talk for a moment.
I cleared my throat and said, "I agree that it is helpful and important to change those genetic deficiencies that cause people to suffer but I'm not sure it is wise to change the genetics that don't live and die with the person receiving treatment." You can tell by her changed tone she didn't like what I said but in an attempt to "pretend" to be egalitarian she asked me to explain.
Collecting my thoughts, I stated that a few generations, or even hundreds of years down the road, we don't know the full impact of these genetic changes on the species. That as we breed and have hundreds of grand and great grand children these implanted genetic changes may cause additional problems down the road as our environment changes. There isn't a way to tell what would happen so we should not run hastily into making changes to DNA that could be passed on.
Most of the table started to agree with my beliefs but the professor seemed to get visible upset and began to be more confrontational in her discussion. The tone and demeanor switched from an open dialogue to an intellectual assault. She then challenged me further stating, "Do you have any idea what your saying, do you have any facts to support your arguments or are you just talking to talk.".
In retort, I responded that no one has facts because it hasn't happened yet. She doesn't have facts either. We can't contain everything in science and we can't control all the variables. So what I am saying is a legitimate concern. We don't know if people will die more from health issue because of the long-term genetic changes we make today, or they will turn out purple, lose pigment, or die of diabetes because we changed something today.
There is wisdom in natural selection and if we don't know the long term consequences then we should be careful about making inter-generational decisions that could impact the lives of people later on. Sure...lets make changes that solve a problem for this person but lets not make genetic changes for the next 10 generations. Genetic science was still in its infancy and it is still underdeveloped.
Because most of the students wanted an A, and view a professor as a authority figure, their viewpoints switched back to supporting the arguments of the professor. Yet, now as a professor, I realize how wrong she was and that the concerns I raised then are part of our current discussion and will likely be part of future discussion on inter-generational genetic enhancements. I walked away from that class thinking I said something terrible, but now I realized I was right for saying so.
Universities should be about empowerment people and helping students come to their own conclusions. Questions are for drawing out greater depth in knowledge but not about forcing people to adhere to a particular dogma for fear of getting a poor grade. That is called "group think" and is part of why we sometimes fail to solve important problems. Raising confidence in students and providing a solid learning environment is helpful in developing fully functional people. That lesson has taught me how even "educated" people can be limited in their thinking. Piling more layers of regurgitated information on an already warped mindset only helps people confirm a false sense of superiority. It isn't about the professor or their viewpoints. It is about the students. Bringing back higher education into a open dialogue where great ideas are pondered is part of the solution of saving higher education from becoming irrelevant as a place where higher thinking occurs.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
The Need for Student Loan Forgiveness: 3 Unanswered Questions
More student loan forgiveness is needed in the U.S. while lawmakers consider removing it altogether. Does it make sense or is it counter productive? Here are a few thoughts that you may or may not agree with depending on where you lean on this issue. Yet there are important questions because we must address those issues in the future.
1.) If college education is getting more expensive how does a high student loan interest rate and the discussion on removing student loan forgiveness impact future education?
While it may seem to be a money saver we may need to consider that it will become increasingly more costly and while the need for education in a high tech world is increasing the ability to obtain such an education will decline.
2.) Are student loans a drag on the economy?
Somewhere around a trillion dollars is locked out of the economy by student loans. This money is not spent on products and services. Of course government revenue is important but we should consider the other costs associated with pay back issues as they impact home ownership, childcare, etc...
3.) Do people have a right to higher education or not?
We must wonder if the highest paying jobs are reserved for those who attend elite institutions in certain fields. Making it more difficult to for others to attend school simply says, "If your parents are wealthy we have an education and job for you, but if you are poor you are going to have to fight the whole way". Lets also consider the middle class that will need to consider cheaper programs with the least amount of debt.
We have a problem of the have and have nots in society now. The movement is growing and economists are warning of the potential catastrophe in the future if we don't allow for more mobility. Reducing student loan forgiveness at this time sends the wrong message. It also perpetuates a problem and we may end up paying the price 20 years down the road with political instability and other other issues when we "lock out" some of our labor force from a better life. Instead of removing student loan forgiveness we may want to expand it to more college students regardless of whether or not they work in the non-profit sector.
1.) If college education is getting more expensive how does a high student loan interest rate and the discussion on removing student loan forgiveness impact future education?
While it may seem to be a money saver we may need to consider that it will become increasingly more costly and while the need for education in a high tech world is increasing the ability to obtain such an education will decline.
2.) Are student loans a drag on the economy?
Somewhere around a trillion dollars is locked out of the economy by student loans. This money is not spent on products and services. Of course government revenue is important but we should consider the other costs associated with pay back issues as they impact home ownership, childcare, etc...
3.) Do people have a right to higher education or not?
We must wonder if the highest paying jobs are reserved for those who attend elite institutions in certain fields. Making it more difficult to for others to attend school simply says, "If your parents are wealthy we have an education and job for you, but if you are poor you are going to have to fight the whole way". Lets also consider the middle class that will need to consider cheaper programs with the least amount of debt.
We have a problem of the have and have nots in society now. The movement is growing and economists are warning of the potential catastrophe in the future if we don't allow for more mobility. Reducing student loan forgiveness at this time sends the wrong message. It also perpetuates a problem and we may end up paying the price 20 years down the road with political instability and other other issues when we "lock out" some of our labor force from a better life. Instead of removing student loan forgiveness we may want to expand it to more college students regardless of whether or not they work in the non-profit sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)