Why Attend College

One industry under attack is higher education.  In some cities, entrepreneurs have jumped into the education realm to compete with failing or underperforming high schools by creating privatized high schools, and that is only high school.  Similar things are happening in community college and universities.

One tenet of a free market is that money attracts attention.  Where large dollars are thrown around, people will try to find ways into the business to get a piece of the action.  This is one reason why in the past ten years, we have seen private models, a.k.a. for-profit endeavors, in higher education. Here is the business case.  On the demand side, outsiders saw tuition rising, record numbers of applicants, increased competition for admission and more jobs requiring degrees. On the supply side, they saw universities with overcrowded dorms and classrooms, degrees that take longer than four years to complete, withering state support, shrinking endowments and land-locked, real estate hungry monstrosities unable to adapt or serve non-traditional students (age, work status, family status) efficiently. In some ways, higher education is overripe for the picking by a critical eye.

At the same time, articles started popping up that took things one step further:  if colleges cannot control costs and deliver a tailored, quality service, why go?  Practitioners, professionals, journalists and finally, families and prospective students started wondering aloud if college should be a fait accompli for 18-year olds across the nation. Is college necessary or are there other legitimate alternatives?  As Baby Boomers fretted over their 401(k)s, tuition, board and book costs took off, and they began to realize they did not have enough in the piggy bank for their kids.  Either the kids pay their way or parents take out second mortgages.  The dilemma:  is the degreed opportunity cost too high?

Many argue yes. Last October, Newsweek ran a cover story about whether college should take three years. That issue also had some collateral pieces, including a roundtable, that explored baselines of typical college students:  do kids enroll from high schools knowing more or less than the past, and are the essentials higher education should provide growing or shrinking? The positions were varied. Some administrators felt students were less prepared than in the past, others felt students were more worldly and had a greater grasp and utilization of technology that gave them an advantage. Some argued college should last longer than in the past because the expectation from employers is greater, and because the quantifiable amount of stuff a college graduate needs to survive had expanded. Interwoven in this was the role of high schools:  launching pads for the super-motivated where students acquire AP / IB credit which knocks out a year or more of core college curriculum requirements, or something else, a place to intern and taste-test careers prior to entering college for instance?  Even with a degree, many twenty-somethings boomerang back to their parents’ house, unable to find work.

If the cost is too high, should this mean do not attend college?  A vocal contingent says no:  higher education offers too many valuable intangibles, regardless of cost, to simply skip it.  Statistics prove college graduates earn more than those without one, and this multiplied over a lifetime equates to millions of dollars of lost income for non-graduates. College is a time for maturation, living on your own, intellectual exploration and access to thought leaders that would be otherwise inaccessible. College offers opportunities for research and close study with professors, as well as networking and social benefits.  Many careers require certain degrees for professional credentials or career advancement, and increasing regulation points to this as growing in numerous fields.

And then there are the trends outside the education realm that get overlaid on this debate which make alternative higher education (internet degrees, etc.) an interesting option.  I learned in a JCCI Forward issue forum a couple years ago, research has shown Generation Y (the Millennials) have a lot less patience for attending college to get advanced degrees than previous generations; they see big dollars in careers that involve little to no additional study (media, computers, software) after high school and think master or doctoral degrees are wastes of time. When the Baby Boomers retire, are we going to be short doctors, attorneys, architects, engineers, professors and the like? Also, average student debt coming out of school is at record levels. Students that pay their own way must juggle a combination of saving, working while in school, and taking out loans, as well as other strategies like piece-mealing semesters or taking courses online. Students with high debt are greater credit risks, which affect their ability to purchase a home or buy a car.

Regardless of higher education’s evolution, some tried-and-true guidelines remain even more evident:  unmotivated, unguided, entitled students are a drain to the higher education system and are not qualified candidates for college.  No ubiquitous online university or small, liberal arts college with a low student-to-teacher ratio will ever fix that. Higher education is a complex system and product, and more than the sum of its parts, but also an investment with an expected payback. I am curious what the future holds, and how the college experience will be defined for my daughter seventeen years from now.

Architects of Public Knowledge

It took a lesson learned outside the country and an MBA project many years later for me to realize, for the most part, the general public has no idea what an architect does. Not only that, but they have no idea where or how best to find one, let alone how to buy from one. Years ago when I was new to the profession and naïve, someone would ask what I did and I would say, “I’m an architect!” The most common response: ‘so you draw buildings’? Well, yes, kind of, but not really. A close second was, “Neat. I always wanted to be one, but I was not very good at math.” I think a lot of architects chose the profession out of an allergy to math.

My feelings were hurt; the profession of architect has been around thousands of years, unlike say, software developer. A survey should be taken to see what people believe architects do. Then I realized a lot of jobs could be cryptic:  do people think lawyers create law?  Do people think engineers operate engines?

The options to combat ignorance are two: aggressive public education, like a marketing campaign; or diligently embed architects in crucial societal activities where expertise will be valued regardless of title. People will have no excuse to learn and appreciate the profession when they interact with one every day.

Architects expect something magical to happen when they announce what they do for a living. Truthfully, people generally hold architects in high esteem, especially outside the U.S. where the profession is often seen as equivalent to an attorney or doctor, despite their general ignorance with the profession. It is a wholesome career—not mercenary or predatory, creation-driven, service-oriented and beneficial to society. Architects help make new things and do not prey off ignorance or information manipulations, inflict pain, or affect anyone’s credit rating or legal status. 

On an easy-to-understand, dictionary level, and maybe put too simplistically, architects design space. Architects do this by collating a user’s expressed needs, safety requirements (like building codes), human habitation needs and environmental issues, and then wrapping that in a container, a structure, that relates to the user on a functional and aesthetic level.  The design of the container, usually a building, is not the endgame (it’s about the space), but to get to that conclusion a new set of design challenges must be addressed, which include collating building technologies, understanding financial constraints, and the construction process. Embedded in designing both the space and its container are the soft skills required to achieve these two goals:  team building, coordinating the work of a group, negotiation, selling, communicating a concept, visualizing ideas, drawing, writing and diplomatically debating and defending a position.  An architect must be adept at most, if not all, of the above.

Believe it or not, in the U.S. an architect is usually more highly valued as part of any team (like a real estate team) that does architectural services as part of its repertoire, i.e. “bundled”, than as an individually licensed professional with his own shingle. Maybe this has to do with spheres of influence:  the more people affected, the greater value. As a teammate services are not questioned and value is inherent. This is reinforced daily by my ongoing relationship as part of a design-build practice. No wonder architects are marginalized in pay and not valued in our construction process—because few citizens are aware of an architect’s real value, especially the value that cannot be assigned a dollar value and compared to other apples and oranges in the world of commerce.

I believe architects, as value contributors to economics and society, are probably best when utilized behind the scenes. Architects should buy on the business a bit, and sell on the creativity. Instead of expending energy to educate the public, we should get to work. Volunteer, run for office, start a company, ascend the corporate ranks, organize, mobilize, manage—like some brand of Project Mayhem from Fight Club. Do not put the architectural service on a platter and ask, ‘what is it worth to you’. No, join other industries. Shape things in different ways. Deploy. To paraphrase David Kelley from IDEO, infuse everything with design thinking. Architects are more powerful as singular entities (within a heterogeneous team) than as a pack (of homogenous architects). They are less domineering and intimidating that way, more able to be accepted. Architects are idea-people, synthesizers. Who could not use that?

I believe architects and those with this knowledge base have extreme power to influence anything they touch in a positive way. Architects are not perfect, but if nothing else, better aesthetics anywhere in our environment is an improvement. If there is anything this world needs, it is more beauty and less banality, more people to think thoughtfully about the world around us and help implement other’s visions. Yes, the general public does not know, or possibly even value, design. So what. Architects should get to work on that. There are ways to elevate this and change the status quo. And to do it subtly, quietly, humbly.

Buh-Bayh

In an interesting and timely follow-up to my Jan. 26 blog post on a broken partisan U.S. political system, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D) not only announced Monday he will not run for re-election or any other political office http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/evan-bayh-presidential-ru_n_463525.html?just_reloaded=1, but volunteered why:  because Congress is a broken and ineffective machine.  In the interview by MSNBC, which the dull interviewers myopically focused on juicy politics (which side is winning) and not the real message (Congress is a partisan mess), Bayh provided some honest insider views of Capitol Hill.  Interestingly, he has nothing to gain politically from his decision and slandered no one, other than to say what is going on in the House and Senate is not working.  He spoke of supporting “practical progress” instead of the “tactical advantage” fellow Congressmen fight over.  He touched on campaign reform, which is required to allow more time for legislation, the real job, and less worry about raising money to run for office in two or even four years.  As an aside, MSNBC tried to bait him to dish on something sensational, but he did not bite (kudos), and the interviewers were too fogged over in an orgy of media hype over aggressive bloggers and not “win[ning]” by staying in politics, to hear his message.

Bayh also gracefully stuck Congress with a dagger while also defending the affront to his competitive side. He said just because he is leaving politics, he is not quitting life and plans to do something productive with his time which will give back to the American people—starting a business that creates jobs, teaching at a university, working for a charity—which is far more than Congress is doing for us Americans.  Wow.

Many times people leave or are forced out of a situation, bitter and disheartened. Bayh is clearly none of the above. He leaves at the top of his game, in good health and ready to do something. I can tell he is an idealist. Fellow idealists do not want to be part of something that is wasteful and subpar when it can be meaningful and effective. Yet he acknoledged politics is about compromise for something rather than posturing for nothing.  Bayh acknoledged the system needs an overhaul and serious housecleaning of incumbents.

This is not the last time you will hear a political insider get disenchanted with not only their job, but the whole ugly system. This is only the first chapter in a long struggle to wrest back control of the democratic process in our country. Americans (and voters), we know, are unhappy. When the talking heads and flesh-pressers get fed up, watch out.  Stay tuned, folks; things are getting interesting.

UVA Basketball On the Rebound

UVA men’s basketball fans should put the NCAA tournament out of their minds for one more year because it will not be possible unless the ‘Hoos win the ACC tournament.  Now that expectations are realigned with reality, we can look at the immense progress the team has made this year under new coach Tony Bennett.

Bennett’s boys are taking care of the ball, playing consistently, playing with confidence and even slam-dunking the ball—a small sign of attitude not lately seen at UVA. The team is unselfish, does not get into foul trouble and is pretty good at the free throw line. Three-point shooting percentage and scoring are up from last year, yet the team does not rely on or resort to too much gunning from behind the arc. The team runs pretty crisp set plays and even slashes to the basket off the dribble, fairly regularly beating defenders off the dribble. Overall, I have seen tremendous progress and growth. If Mr. Bennett can keep Landesberg from leaving early, UVA has a high ceiling for achievement in the coming years.

I find it surprising how new coaches in any sport are able to do so well with someone else’s players.  It is not like going to your neighbor’s shed and borrowing a rake, lawn mower, weed wacker and clippers and being surprised your lawn looks good; your lawn should look good because those are universal tools, not guards and centers and forwards.  College kids who play ball are fickle, with personalities, attitudes, and when a program turns sour, at least a little baggage. Taking over at a new school, a coach inherits players he did not watch play, he did not recruit nor visit with their families nor offer them scholarships.  He does not know them from Adam and is still expected to get them to respect him and play as a team representing a school at which he is the newcomer.

In UVA’s recent basketball history, the school has been pretty fortunate with new coaches since Jeff Jones’ departure. Pete Gillen did pretty well in his first couple years, enough to convince the school to give him a far too long and too lucrative contract given the short-term accomplishments.  In academic parlance, he gave a few flashy lectures, and got tenure. He had the advantage of an unfortunate departure by Jeff Jones for comparison, so UVA bought character in his case and tried too hard to forget the recent past. 

Dave Leitao picked up the pieces from Gillen and had some early success. Leitao had the advantage of following a really bad record in the ACC tournament and only two NCAA trips in about nine years for comparison.  Like Gillen, Leitao could recruit too, but his teams seemed to be hit or miss:  they opened JPJ arena with an invicibility streak, and were even co-champions of the ACC one year I believe.  They could shock a powerhouse like Arizona two games into the season, but easily go 5-11 in the ACC.  There was not a consistent, building body of work for Leitao. In academic parlance, he wrote a manuscript that got a book deal and was given tenure.

Tony Bennett seems to be solid, but ‘Hoos fans have seen this early success before in Gillen and Leitao.  What I like in Bennett’s team is his team has an identity (gutsy and defense-oriented) and seems fundamentally-sound, i.e. no 24 turnover games like the Gillen and Leitao years. And, Bennett has four recruits in the Rivals Top 150 coming in next year, mostly out-of-staters I believe; no five-star studs yet, but already this is progress. Jeff Jones had a pretty consistent tap into the Oak Hill and Hargrave Military Academy pipelines.  If Bennett augments his recruiting network with some local talent, watch out.

Jeff Jones’ formula as UVA’s coach fifteen years ago was far from a juggernaut, but I believe he maximized his talent and was always good for a shocker upset or two over the always-highly-ranked ACC gang of Duke, UNC and Wake Forest back in the day. He got sloppy near the end of his time judging player character, but also took UVA to the NCAAs fairly regularly with at least one Sweet Sixteen and an Elite Eight appearance in the mid 1990s on the back of an NIT Championship.  He was no golden boy, but a fair standard of recent success against which we can judge UVA head coaches in the post-Holland era.

Tony Bennett is on a familiar path of early success, so let us not be suckers or skeptics but realists:  we have seen this happen before and turn out poorly for the program and school.  Mr. Bennett is young and appears to be a classy gentleman.  I offer up my support to him and his methods, with patience—patience I hope the University also has before it opens its coffers for a long-term deal. 

Like many professors, he will want to know his future, seeking tenure, and be able to settle into the local groove.  First, he must prove himself one player and one year at a time. May he return UVA to conference and national relevance again in the sport.  And soon enough the Dance invitations will come.  Go ‘Hoos!

Investing is Not Glamorous

I force myself to read or at least skim almost every form of text that makes it into my house. I even peruse my wife’s fashion magazines to see how behind in the times my wardrobe is.

One source that seems like a broken record each time I read it is investor articles in magazines, and newsletters by mutual fund companies and discount traders. From time to time I have info from Vanguard, T.Rowe Price, Schwab and Scottrade floating around the house and thrones, as well as magazines like Smart Money. I read articles in the Wall Street Journal, on Yahoo! Finance and at Motley Fool online.  You can tell I try to get an edge anywhere I can.

A few things bother me about most of what I read on investing. Primarily, when you read info from investment houses you are tortured with disclaimers about how past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Geez, how many times does this have to appear in a twelve-page pamphlet?! Investing is risky. We get it. Readers do not need told and retold, and then reinterpreted in several different ways in case we missed it the first five times. State it once at the beginning or on the inside cover and get on with the article.

Even more disappointing is the lack of creativity to cover subject matter. I suppose most editors feel like they are played out for the year after they cover the various life-stage issues like saving for college, retirement and balancing your portfolio. Sure, you get the odd article on insurance or spotlights on specific tools like annuities or end-of-year tax tricks, but for the most part the information is homogeneous and magazine covers are virtually interchangable.

But most numbing is the plain manner that information is conveyed. One reason I like the Motley Fool is they add personality to their pieces, although some of them get formulaic when you can predict which stocks will be mentioned and how shallowly the information is covered. If I take time out of my day, I want the subject matter to be fresh and insightful. I want to remember it.  Read something interesting, you say.  Yeah, I get that.

Why is everyone portrayed as a middle class nobody or perfect American family? There are a lot of people—single people, working overtime and second jobs, without a pension or comprehensive health care, without life insurance, who have hard choices to make, one of which is:  how best to utilize a very small sliver of disposable income every month. Where is the newletter for that population?

Ninty-nine percent of the time investing is portrayed as a placid pasttime, something you do for ten minutes on a Sunday afternoon between church and cooking the family dinner, as if checking on portfolios (which is all investing really is, right?!) was akin to reading a box score in the sports section. I have news for the people who are trying to educate us (and obviously sell their services at the same time): get real!

Investing is not glamorous, and its Hallmark card portrayal is totally false.  It takes me several hours to pore over information to make one, single decision on a trade—and half the time I feel like I am overmatched and shooting in the dark anyway. Intelligent investing is a part-time job, probably why most people farm it out and like to not worry about it. No one writes about how much time it takes or where to find good information; the company line is only:  consult a professional.

Investing is trench warfare, down and dirty. Investing is frustrating because it takes practice, research and intuition—and then the guts to actually buy or sell…and then not go nuts second-guessing yourself. It takes patience, focus and trust that your data is good and you (kind of) know what you are doing.  And this is for Average Joe investing in IRAs and the odd mutual fund or stock, not day-trading or commodities or currency.

Investing takes a support network. As much as you want to be private, it is still a Vegas bet. You make a pick and want to post-rationalize at times; you want to feel good about what you did, so you have to have a friend or family member as your co-pilot on this journey, not someone to feed you felonious hot stock tips. Investing takes a real mentor or confidant, or maybe just a very good listener, to affirm you are sane.

But no journalist seems interested in those angles. The coin shops want to keep cranking out model portfolios and 50,000 mile views of what to do in your 30s, 40s and 50s, and how to safely diversify your 401(k) against a recession, when my neighbor wants to know how exactly capital gains this year will affect his tax returns next year.

When the investing houses and mutual fund managers start writing about reality and worry less about CYA, they will resonate more with the general public and gain traction in this ultra-competitive market.  I welcome the day.