The American Innovation Machine. Part X

I have written more than 500 pages on a book titled "The Great Broken American Innovation Machine." After I explained the subject matter, the book title was coined for me by Dr. Robert Litan, an economist with the Kauffman Foundation. That was several years ago. Ever since that, I have been monitoring the innovation conversation. It has been on a crescendo.

I did a lot of research for the book material. I have testified in court on many occasions on technology, innovation and patent issues. I have founded two successful technology companies and invested in many more. Ergo, I am not a neophyte on the issue. Yet the foundation criteria for creating innovation escapes genuine identification, duplication and application.

A simple Google search on innovation yields several million search returns. How to do it? The criteria for innovation? Research? Benchmarks? The books and suggestions are endless, but none are innovative. Most restate the obvious.

The government holds hearings on what can it do to foster innovation. Foundations spend millions on innovation policy research. Does any of it matter? Does any of it effect innovation, presuming we could measure it in the first place? Arizona has established a new position in the city government to foster innovation among the various departments. The signs are pervasive that innovation is a conversation starter. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has an anecdotal example.

July is a good time to read the constitution. Why? Because the United States constitution is more than just about inalienable rights. For example, Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution is profound. It was likely written by a distant relative of Steve Jobs or other innovation-minded American, such as Robert Goddard. However, America's quest, to provide protection and encourage innovation, is not without global risks. We are slowly losing our ability to protect our innovations. Think not?  Law firms estimate it costs an average of $1.3 million to defend a patent in court. And 30% of the patents defended in court are overturned on the basis of prior art. 

Where do small business fit into this scenario? No where. That is the problem.


Keep me alive.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8?

The fourth of July is a good time to read the constitution. Why? Because the United States constitution is more than just about inalienable rights. For example, Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution is profound. It was likely written by a distant relative of Steve Jobs or other innovation-minded Americans, such as Robert Goddard. However, America's quest, to provide protection and encourage innovation, is not without global risks.

A few miles from Obama's chair in the Oval office is the Goddard Space center, named after Robert Goddard. He is credited with launching the first liquid fueled rocket in 1926. According to historians, his team of scientists launched 34 rockets between 1926 and 1941. He was issued more than 200 patents, most on rocket related subjects, such as devices for  gyroscopic navigation-which is used to control rocket flight, to help planes navigate and to keep ships sailing upright.

Historians call him one the fathers if  not, the father of rocketry. He was scoffed at in the newspapers when he discussed sending a rocket to the moon. In the early forty's as the story goes, the most influential Americans and the military believed the only valuable use for rockets was to accelerate the take-off of sea planes. The Germans disagreed.  German scientists purchased a copy of Goddard's patents from the US patent office and started building their own rockets based on Goddard's patent disclosures. The Constitution can bite both ways.

As I  understand it, Hitler invested $100 million in the German rocket program and the result was the V1-an unmanned rocket bomb that rained havoc, killing an estimated 22,000 civilians, on London.  On the drawing boards was the V-9, designed to destroy London and the V-10, code named the "York," which we can only imagine was designed to bomb an American city.

By the way, Article 1, section 8, clause 8, states "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries.."It is the foundation clause that protects what we now refer to as intellectual property. This week, more than 236 years after this inspired clause was scribed, Apple won a victory in federal court prohibiting Samsung  from selling the Galaxy 10.1 in the United States. Apple claims that Samsung copied the patented design of the iPad.

The United States constitution is a treasure at many levels. I am going to read it outloud on the "Fourth" and then watch for those important upcoming supreme court decisions that will undoubtably effect the election.

Join me.

The American innovation machine?

Like most people, I am fascinated by the process of innovation. How does it start? Is it an individual effort, necessity, or the result of team-think? Does it take the charisma and unrelenting passion of a Steve Jobs, or can innovation be done in a less stressful environment? When I attended business school, the concept that small innovative companies become large non-innovative institutions (with rare exceptions) was dogma. That was more than 40 years ago, but it seems even more true today.

Anecdotally speaking, my first job was with a company with $200 million in annual sales, it invented nothing. I joined a company with $2 million in annual sales, it was an innovation machine. As a result, it quickly became a company with $500 million in sales. Then, it invented nothing.

The case for the inability of large companies to innovate grows with each acquisition by Microsoft or Google. For example, Microsoft announced today it is buying a 2008 startup Yammer for $1.2 billion, a business with estimated sales of $15-20 million. I should add that Yammer had previously raised approximately $140 million in venture capital from many of the same people that invested in Facebook. Google has purchased over 100 companies. It did not have a revenue strategy until it bought the firm that introduced the now ubiquitous adwords concept.

Keep this fact in mind when watching the POTUS candidates throw a small bone to small business because it is the leading engine of jobs in the economy. Small business needs larger bones because it is not only the engine for new jobs it is the engine for American innovation. Whether by individual or by team-think, it is the startups, the small businesses, fueled by investment capital, passion, persistence and single-minded focus that keep the American innovation machine running. The POTUS candidates should recognize this fact and establish regulations that would enable significant sums, $500 billion or more, of private investment capital to easily flow into small business in the next 6 months. To be fair, there has been legislation pointed in this direction, but the economy needs a transformational revolution enabling startups unfettered access to new capital.

If Americans understood how the job innovation engine works, they would be in favor of special treatment for investment capital in startups. It is the fuel for the innovation machine.

Are you a snake killer or meeting caller?

You don’t hear much about Ross Perot anymore. Some of you may remember him. Ross Perot made a run for the presidency and was I believe the founder of EDP, and at one time he was on the board of General Motors. EDP is a large, successful data processing company with HQ in Texas.

As I understand the story, after several heated conversations about the distinction between EDP executives and GM executives, the president of General Motors asked Ross Perot, “What makes EDP executives so different from the executives at General Motors?” 

Ross Perot replied, “EDP executives are snake killers.” 

The GM CEO asked, “What do you mean?” 

Ross Perot replied, “If a GM executive sees a snake in the office hallway, they call a meeting to decide when to have another meeting to discuss what to do about the snake, to discuss snake agenda issues, to determine if GM had a snake policy, to establish a snake killer budget and to assign responsibility for handling the snake matter. And of course by that time the snake is gone and the snake has killed several people. 

Perot continued to say, “If an EDP executive saw a snake in the hallway, the executive would kill the snake, then call the meeting.

Are you a snake killer or a meeting caller?

Who is your go-to person?

Do you call your Go-To Guy in the morning? I do. This morning I awoke with a mobile application problem on my mind. I called my Go-To Guy in Omaha and asked him the question. It had to do with the ability of a mobile application to locate where you are and then provide you with information without you even asking for it. In other words, it senses what you need, where you are, and comes back with a list of options. It seemed too good to be true.

So I called my Go-To Guy and gave him the situation, and he gave me a great answer. His answer is not as important as the concept of the Go-To Guy. Now I’m trying to apply that technique into Obama versus Mitt Romney. If I had to pick a presidential candidate for a Go-To Guy, who would it be? Would I rather call Mitt and ask him a tough economic, political question or would I rather call Obama? Who would be my Go-To Guy for political, governmental issues? 

By the way of background, I have approximately a dozen Go-To Guys and two Go-To Women. For the most part each of these Go-To People are smarter in subject matter areas than I am. That’s why they’re my Go-To People. Further, I can call my Go-To people, ask a quick question and get a quick answer, not a cavalier or short sighted answer, but an opinion that has the combined experience of my Go-To Person’s career and their honesty about their opinion. If they don’t know, they say so. If they can find out, they say they will. If they know the answer, they tell me. 

Now back to the Obama/Romney Go-To selection process. That’s where I’m stumped. I simply don’t know which one has subject matter expertise more than I and of course which one is more honest than the other. By honest I don’t mean they would deliberately lie. I mean would they tell me their genuine opinion in terms I could understand and act on. 

Based on what I know, I have to pick Romney as my Go-To Person.  He has five sons. They all seem to be well mannered, articulate, and advocates for their dad. That has to be a real testimonial. Obama hasn’t gone through this teenage to grown-up phase yet. So we’re not sure how he would handle it. But having five sons myself, I can testify that it is a growing experience for the father. So Romney is my Go-To Guy for POTUS. Obama would still be my Go-To Guy for spinning a phrase, oratorical excellence, and presentation skills. 

Are you a story teller or a tool maker?

Everyone is a tool maker or a story teller. I heard Steve Jobs make this comment and then he asked rhetorically to the audience, which are you? I thought it was a profound comment, although I am not sure why. Are there not tool users and story readers? But if Jobs said it, then it had to be an extraordinary observation. 

I thought about Jobs’  comment today as I attended a seminar in Kansas City, Missouri on Digital Story Telling. It was sponsored by Hallmark, the Kansas City Art Institute and a host of other organizations who are into digital story telling-loosely meaning films, ads and videos.

The keynote speaker was Frank Rose. Rose was a writer for wired magazine, wrote a book and now he is an expert on the future of digital story telling. In a few minutes, he gave a fascinating walk down media lane from oral stories, to print, to music and now to digital. He showed two slides which confirmed what we all know. Advertisers have left newspapers like the proverbial rats and the sinking ship. And print classifieds have dried up like a speck of water in the Sahara. Cliches still work.

The last time I read the classifieds in the Kansas City Star, most of the classified ads were from the Kansas City Star looking for people with on-line editorial and advertising experience. That example illustrates the problem.  Why? Because only a person, unwilling to acknowledge the dominant impact of on-line technology would presume that on-line digital experts are reading the classified print ads for jobs.

One thing that Rose said, struck me as naive. It made me look up from my iPhone and pay attention. He said that in the old days of  print media, power was centered in the pocket books of a few newspaper  owners. I was in agreement with this comment, after all, I have seen the movie about Randolph Hearst and am current on the Rupert Murdoch power scandal saga. However, Rose added that in the digital world the power is more widespread and is in the hands of the many Internet participants not just a few corporate owners. I disagree. The billionaire access owners still control Internet access points and information filtering is always an option. Cash is still King even in the Internet world. 

And when the Internet goes down, who do you call? There is a fascinating digital story to tell about the real power and control of the Internet. Who is the president of the Internet? I am not a tool maker.

Wal-Mart. Best-Buy. China. Internet. Disintermediation

Is it too late to learn Chinese? No sir and what has that go to with the Internet and disintermediation. China makes things? They make lots of things. They ship these things to Wal-Mart, Best buy, Radio Shack and just about any retail store you can walk into. Now hold that thought for a minute.

Last week I searched the Internet for a USB to AC adaptor-the kind of adaptor that you use to charge your mobile phone and your iPad or equal. These adaptors sell for more than $25 in local retail stores. I found an on-line store where I could purchase the adaptors for $5.95. I bought three and the shipping charge was $4.50. They arrived today shipped from China. This purchasing pattern marginalizes the retail stores. Who needs a Best-Buy or a Wal-Mart when you can buy the product directly from the real manufacturer in China and get it shipped to your door for 70% less than the cost of purchasing it locally; not counting the hassle of driving to the store, finding the product, buying it and driving home.

Now let's put the thoughts together. The Internet spawns disintermediation- it kills the middle man where there is no real value added. Wal-mart, car dealers and Best buy are intermediaries. Of course, this does not work for all products, but it works for USB to AC adaptors and based on this single anecdotal example I am sure it works for many more. Watch out for the BUY DIRECT FROM CHINA ADS. Don't laugh too quick.They laughed at Dell when he said people will buy computers on-line, sight unseen and and pay in advance. Sears was a large retailer, at one time too!

Disintermediation. A valuable concept.

The Concept of a Corporation. Is it still relevant?

You should read The Concept of a Corporation. A 1946 business best seller written by Peter Drucker. Drucker became a business guru because of the book. It was written about General Motors. According to legend, GM was not happy with the book.  However, the Japanese were happy.  They used Drucker's suggestions to enter the automotive business and some would say, used Drucker's ideas to leap ahead of American manufacturers. The book was required reading in many graduate business schools in 1970.

The book came to my mind because I noticed today a comment from the current GM CEO, Dan Akerson. He said that he hoped the politicians would agree on an economic package that would prevent America from slip-sliding into a recession. GM sales are up, relatively speaking, but its stock is down 33% from its IPO price in 2010.

I wonder what Drucker would write about GM today. Would he comment on the role dealers have played in the sales channel? Would he agree the unions have been helpful in growing or shrinking GM? Or would he say that the factors that contributed to the success of GM in 1946 were the same factors that contribute to its difficulty in 2012. After all, 66 years has produced a set of circumstances much different than existed in 1946. Drucker suggested that GM should be organized more like the federal government and its relationship with state governments. The suggestion was a reach toward the notion of decentralization,  but it may have come true.

I am going to pull this book from the archives and read it again. I recommend you do too.

Time Control

Listen my friends and you shall hear, the tick tock of time forever dear.

To a large degree, most of us control our own time. Sure, if you have a job your boss can tell you what to do and can trump your own time control plans. However, each of us receives 24 hours a day. Yet some people seem to get so much more done than others. How do they do it? They control their time. They budget time the way Scrooge budgets money.

Little techniques can help.

For example, rather than be interrupted by every phone call you receive, send your calls to voice mail, then take 30 minutes at the end of each day to respond to your voice mails. The same goes for email. Stop checking it every 5 minutes. Check it at 8, 12 and 4. Take 15 minute to respond when you check it. If you can respond do it, do not say to yourself I will respond later. Discipline counts. Use your calendar. Put on your calendar 30 minutes at the end of each day to respond to voice mails and emails.

Do not let people interrupt you when you are working. If you are at the office, use the red light - green light method. Have a series of colored signs. Green means they can interrupt you and red says leave me be.

First step in controlling your time is recognize that it is precious and can never be replaced. That is all my blogging time for today. Take control of your time. It is yours.

Competition is a fascinating notion.

Yesterday, I met Bubba. 

Bubba told me he was just invited to participate in the Mr. Olympia competition. The Olympia competition is what gave Arnold Schwarzenegger his start. Bubba can bench press 744 pounds. Wow! Followed by a big so what?  Bubba made me ponder how much the notion of competition is embedded in every thing we do- running, football, baseball, school, SAT, GRE, soccer, fantasy football, drinking games and of course a presidential race.

The act of the competition is greater than the importance of the event. Romney challenges Obama to a skiing competition. Obama counters with a basketball competition.  The media competes for the best story.  The media is more obsessed with who will win, then the winner's impact on the American landscape.

It's the competition itself that makes the event fascinating. If you are in your yard with several people picking up leaves, it will not be too long before someone begins a competition to pick up leaves faster than anyone else. Competition is a good thing I believe. It makes the cream rise to the top. It sorts out the winners from the losers. It is pervasive. I can not imagine a civilization without competition.

The Federal  anti-trust department exists to make sure that competition is alive and well and growing in America. Our legal system is founded on competition. Americans are mesmerized by trials. It is the penultimate stage for showcasing the competition for right and wrong with the ultimate penalty of death.

Is competition good? Does it produce a valuable product or service? All the arguments say, yes. To be against competition is to be against the American way. We root for our losers, the underdog as they say, but we vote for our winners. Competition may be the oldest notion among men.

I need to stop writing now, which may make a few of you happy, but I must go observe a game where we pit our 12 year old grandson in unmerciful competition against other 12 year olds. We will be encouraging them to kill the ball, strike the kid out, and launching other verbal threats hurled from the stands.

Baseball lives on.

CEO compensation is a joke.

Welcome to my new blog followers. I know who you are and thank you for following.

Now listen up. I have something to say.

Dan Hesse, CEO of Sprint, gave back $3.4 million in executive bonus compensation after shareholders complained. Sprint is on the rocks yet the executives rake in money like leaves in an early fall. The CEO of Aviva, Britain's largest insurance company, resigned after a shareholder revolt over his salary. Arriba Aviva!

The CEO of Yahoo! is being asked to resign by shareholders because his resume, vetted by experts, listed a degree in Computer Science, he never had. He is paid $millions to layoff thousands of Yahoo! employees with accurate resumes. He called his extra college degree an oversight. The fact that he is still working for Yahoo! is a serious slap in the face to every Yahoo! employee and shareholder.

Who hires these CEO's? Boards of directors do. They typically walk away unscathed by their inept hiring and unfair compensation decisions. It seems the more a company loses the more they pay the CEO. I applaud the shareholders who band together to force action. However, if the shareholders just dumped their stock, it would send a more compelling message to management teams that extract exorbitant compensation packages at the expense of the shareholders.

If you own stock in these companies, sell it.

Have you been disqualified because you are overqualified?

Can you be rejected for a job because you are overqualified? Yes. I was.

As subjective as the term "overqualified" is, companies use it to disqualify candidates for employment. It is prejudicial and discriminatory, but companies still do it. It can be unlawful to discriminate based on age, but to discriminate solely based on overqualified is a legal loophole that some companies try to crawl through, just like the slimy snakes they are. Of course some companies use the term overqualified as code for "too old" for the job. Discrimination based on age is unlawful. The code word overqualified masks the real reason for a discriminatory practice.

But guess what? There are a lot of us "old people" (over 50) who still wish to work or need to work and we are sick and tired of being disqualified because we are overqualified. That's right-DQed because we are OQed. The loophole does create some problems for companies that rely on this term too heavily. Perhaps as the numbers of old people grow, and our rejections for being overqualified increase, and our patience is trumped by our actions, then the loophole will shrink and eventually close entirely.

I have a suspicion that DQed because you are OQed happens more frequently than is reported. Why? Because it is flat-out embarrassing, frustrating, exasperating and demeaning. Plus, it makes no sense to any reasonable employment candidate. If a person has 1/2 of a  brain, you would want to hire the overqualified because a company gets significantly more experience at a price discount. Do companies achieve greatness by hiring the unqualified? Nope. Pick up the phone, or go to a store and ask for help.  The impact of hiring the unqualified is apparent.

I am not sure what to do about this problem, but I am researching it.

Any ideas?

Robert J. Sherwood

The day the Internet shut down.

Head for the hills.

What happens the day the Internet shuts down?
Who will you call?
Who is the president of the Internet?
Who is in charge of customer service?
Who is empowered to fix it?
How will you buy things?

Food?
Gasoline?
How will you get your money?

Be prepared. This scenario makes vampires look like your best friend.

All concerns about nuclear war are minuscule compared to an Internet shut down.

Yet no one really talks about it. It is probably going to happen someday. It is like the lottery. It is a long shot, but someone does win.  An Internet shut down is a long shot too, or is it?

How should I know?

Disagree?

What is the Encyclopedia Britannica?

When I was a boy, the Encyclopedia Britannica was an icon of the brilliant. It was expensive and only the well-to-do could afford to purchase. It was usually sold on the basis of purchasing a book a month until you had the whole multiple book set.  You need to read the reasons for its failure at the link below. The point is school textbooks as we know them are gone. They are not the sacred icons that many schools believe.

<http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2012/03/20/2b2k-13-reasons-why-the-britannica-failed-on-paper/>

Hire your Director of Google Search.

Technology is wonderful.

My Apple keyboard accidentally crashed to the floor yesterday and the space bar came off. It was not broken, just unattached. We replaced it, but this morning it was not still working properly. I imagined a trip to the Apple store or a computer repair place and a charge of $50 to put it on right. It looked simple enough, but there was a trick to it.

A simple search on Google and I saw two videos explaining how to do it. Bingo, it was fixed. No charge.

This is more common today then I imagined. Computer search experienced people head to Google to search for an answer on how to do something. I am beginning to genuinely appreciate the need for a Masters Degree Program in Google.

I wonder how many businesses are gearing up for hiring their Director of Google Search. We already have another new title, Social Media Manager. It was not even a job 5 years ago.

I watched Double Jeopardy last night. I was impressed with the memories of the contestants. They knew most of the answers. And it is a meaningless skill in the next decade where knowing the question will trump memorizing the answer in the world of search. It is time students are allowed to take their SAT exams with a personal computer with Internet access  because that is how they will really do work.

What do you think?

Send your robot to class.

Urgent. Urgent.

By now you may have read excerpts from  the presentation by Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google, at the Mobile World Congress 2012. The conference was held in Barcelona, Spain in February. I have been unable to locate a word for word document so I may have to try Yahoo! search. You need to Google the presentation and read the excerpts.

Schmidt has a view from the top of the technology pyramid that can not be denied. From education to consumer products, he predicts radical change- including for example, a robot that goes to class for you and videos the professor's lecture, driverless cars and a consumer connected world.

This link should get you started.

http://www.megatechnews.com/google-chairman-eric-schmidt-talks-personal-robots/

If you are a recent college graduate wondering what industries to pursue, a start-up company wondering what products to develop, an angel investor wondering where to invest your money or just a curious person wondering about the future, Schmidt's presentation has something to offer.

I would be curious to hear his views on the impact of this technology on our government.

Here is my forecast. Apple will introduce a pay by iPhone methodology that will eliminate banks. Your check will be deposited into your iPhone account, where you will buy stuff, invest money, get loans and pay for things. Apple will replace the FDIC as a worldwide guarantor of deposits.

It may happen sooner than you think.

A Goto site.

This site will enable you to amaze your friends with thoughtful and fascinating information.


http://gigaom.com

What is the secret of entrepreneurship?

The secret of Entrepreneurship revealed. 

It was produced for an awards ceremony in Annapolis EEFinal.mov: http://youtu.be/UE_c3SYawzk via @youtube

You will need to watch the whole video to know the secret. 

Bob

The iPad will change education forever.

Last week, I had the pleasure to have dinner with four retired teachers. Each teacher was intelligent, articulate, and had taught in the public school system in either grade school or high school for at least 25 years. I asked these teachers a simple question. I said, “Have there been any changes in the educational system in the last 25 years?” They all jumped all over the question. “Sure. There have been many changes. Everything is different today.” They went on to explain in great detail all the different teaching methods, different teaching tools, software, computer systems, behavioral studies, new measurement systems that measure a student’s progress, and other advances in the educational system. I listened quietly for about 25 minutes.

Then I couldn’t resist. I said, “Well, with all these changes, doesn’t it still take eight years to get through grade school and four years to get through high school?” If there have been all these magnificent, awesome changes in the educational system, why doesn’t grade school take four years now and high school perhaps two years? “After all,” I continued to forcefully assert, “In the computer business, we’ve had advances in storage technology that allows us now to buy an 80 gigabyte hard drive for about $150 when ten years ago, an 80 gigabyte hard drive cost $1,500 or even $2,000. In other words, progress in most situations is measured by getting more for your money with advances in the industry. Why is that not the case in education?”

I offered many other examples of other industries where there had been advances in the industry, and those advances had been passed on for either quicker, more efficient, or more effective products or services to the consumer or to the person receiving the service. Yet in the educational system and considering literally the billions of dollars that have been spent on developing educational system advances, particularly in our grade school and high school systems, we virtually still require students to spend 12 years in grade school and high school before graduation. In other words, with all the advances, it still takes the same length of time to graduate as it did 100 years ago. “Where are the advances”? I argued rhetorically?

The teachers were dismayed at my indisputable logic, but still defended the undefendable. Of course the teachers countered with the material is more advanced, the students are learning more college level material, and arguments that essentially supported that the advances hadn’t been in reducing the number of years it takes to go through the grade school or high school system, but that the content or the material that was now being delivered was sufficiently advanced that it justified the teacher’s belief that the educational system had indeed had spectacular advances in the last 25 years.

On the contrary, I offered. If in fact high school systems were teaching more college material, then college should coincidentally or on a corollary basis be reduced to less than four years. Yet it still takes four years to go through college. So with all the advances, it still takes eight years for grade school, four years for high school, and essentially four years for a college degree. So the argument that the educational system has had incredible advances simply can’t be confirmed by any standard measurement.

One of the teachers, the biology teacher, who had taught biology in high school for approximately 25 years, countered with the statement that it simply took that long for the students to mature. At that point, I said, “With all these advances in the educational system, in other words we’re just waiting the same length of time for maturity to occur in our kids?” I continued, “It was never my understanding that as a taxpayer we are paying school teachers to simply observe our children while they matured.”

It seemed the biology teacher’s explanation was that we could teach them faster, but maturity still took time. On the other hand, it still doesn’t support the contention that there have been any advances in the educational system. Now clearly and unarguably there have been changes. But to the largest extent, these changes haven’t produced any reduction in the cost of education. Education costs more today than it did 10 years ago. Further, these changes haven’t produced any efficiency in education because grade school still takes eight years, and high school still takes four years. So there have not been any improvements in efficiency. And further, there haven’t been any changes in effectiveness. Students still come out of high school and essentially score about the same numbers on the SAT scores as they did 15 years ago.

Now there are some arguments that there have been slight improvements in SAT scores. But these are minor, and they’re not really supportable by high school educational improvements as much as by changes in the SAT scoring system itself. So try as we might, the more we affirm that there has been a dramatic change in the educational system, we simply can’t provide any measurement that shows there has been any progress.

Progress in the educational system is hampered by superstitions without foundation. For example, we continue to segregate classes: fourth grade from fifth grade, fifth grade from sixth grade, and sixth grade from seventh grade. On the contrary, there have been more astronauts produced from small schools where the age groups are mixed than astronauts produced in educational systems where the grades are segregated. Despite knowledge to the contrary, for example, we know kids learn better from peers. They learn better from kids who are a few years older than they are. In other words, in principle, we know from observation that sixth graders teach fourth graders and fourth graders teach second graders at a faster rate than they learn similar material from an adult.

Why not go back and mix first and second graders and second and third graders and sixth and eighth graders? You might discover that a lot of sixth graders could do eighth grade work. If they can do eighth grade work, then we should be graduating them after six years from grade school, not waiting for them to mature into the eighth grade. If they can do the work, they should be able to proceed. Yet we don’t have a system that allows that to happen.

Another superstition is that by-passing grades are bad for the social behavior of the student. It seems teachers believe it is better to bore a student with second grade material when the student is equally capable of performing at a higher grade, than it is to promote the student to the next grade. Sure, there are exceptions where people are allowed to bypass a grade. But those are rare. In general, no matter how well you do in the sixth grade, you have to go to the seventh grade. One of my grandchildren already reads at the fourth grade level. She’s in the first grade. Yet she’s going to be presented with material – not only at a reading level – but at other levels – with other first graders. Yet she has proven beyond a doubt she can do fourth grade work.

So why shouldn’t she be in the fourth grade? Now comes the behaviorists with their basket of unsupported superstitions. There are many behavioral reasons that are offered by opponents of moving children up at a faster rate. These have to do with the size of the children, their ability to socialize and mix with other students, and the reasons go on and on. More behavior oriented, more superstition based, but clearly not based on any logic or foundation. More often than not, it’s based on anecdotal examples from individuals. There are perhaps as many anecdotal exceptions as there are anecdotal issues with jumping grades. Schools started with mixed grades. Children advanced when they were ready.

If students were allowed to jump grades, it would save the parent money. If I help my child at home and allow him to advance to the eighth grade in six years rather than eight years, perhaps I should get a rebate for being a better parent and more interested in my student’s welfare. There needs to be back-to-the-basics thinking that would create real and measured advances in our educational system. Going back to my conversation with the teachers, the more I pressed them on measurements that confirm there have been major improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of our educational system, the more they were unable to come up with any measurement or any research study or any real examples demonstrating real educational progress.

No doubt, 100 years from now it will still take 8 years for grade school and 4 years for high school in the USA. But we better be emphasizing foreign languages by then because other countries are not so married to the standard educational process. This year several grade school students scored a perfect 1600 on the college SAT scores. Guess what? Next year they may still be in grade school. Education progress, I am told it is there. I just can not find it.

Is Barnes and Noble dead this time?

Pubit.com is the digital publishing space for Barnes and Noble. My sense is they are dying.

I publish my books on Pubit.com, Apple iBookstore/iTunes and Kindle/Amazon. In the last few weeks, Pubit has had many website technical problems. It seems to me the Pubit visitor traffic has also dropped off significantly. For example, my sales at Pubit have gone to zero while my sales for the iPad continue to grow. Kindle comes in second, but Pubit does not come in at all.

Be ready for another negative announcement from Barnes and Noble. It's Kodak all over again.

Here is an idea. Purchase my guide to public speaking for your iPhone. The next time you must pitch a presentation or give an interview, take a quick read prior to  your pitch. It will help. I guarantee it.