Danny Crichton

As the economic malaise continues for America and much of the world, political leaders continue to drive their nations to more pleasant pastures of high-growth industries. Unsurprisingly, these industries tend to be knowledge-intensive and require a deep reservoir of human capital. Creating new products and building fancy new widgets requires knowledge, and that knowledge comes directly from a strong and dynamic education system.

On August 8 and 9, two speeches illustrate the common goals -- yet divergent success -- in accomplishing this mission.

August 8 was Singapore's National Day, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivered a short address targeting increased investment in education as a chief priority of his government.

"Our goal is for all Singaporeans to enjoy the fruits of growth. When Singapore prospers, you will benefit from many government programmes: better designed HDB estates, higher quality schools and hospitals, more MRT lines and new places for recreation. But each one of us has to make the effort. Every student must be keen to learn and go as far as you can. Every worker must master the knowhow and skills to be productive and competitive. Every manager must train and motivate his staff to maximise their contribution and potential. Only then can Singaporeans do the better jobs that our economy will create, and enjoy higher incomes, brighter opportunities, and more fulfilling lives."

On August 9, President Barack Obama gave a lengthy address at the University of Texas-Austin in which he laid out his higher education agenda. His entire speech can be read here on the White House website.

A pull-quote:

"Now, when I talk about education, people say, well, you know what, right now we're going through this tough time. We've emerged from the worst recession since the Great Depression. So, Mr. President, you should

As a regular commentator on higher education, I have covered a wide range of issues that currently plague the American university system. While the system certainly has its problems, it by and large remains one of the crown jewels of the American economy.

Treatises attacking the university system are not new, and a new book to be released next week, Higher Education?, is running over well-trodden ground. As part of the book's publicity campaign, the authors were interviewed by the Atlantic on some of their findings. You can read the interview here. My initial conclusion: the myopia in this article is breathtaking. Let me go through all of my favorite parts:

"Schools get status by bringing on professors who are star researchers, star scholars. That's all we really know about Caltech or MIT or Stanford. We don't really know about the quality of undergraduate teaching at any of these places. And it's the students who suffer."

I know a little about the quality of undergraduate teaching at top schools since I attend one. As with any people-oriented enterprise, there is inconsistency in the quality of teaching at Stanford University. No university is immune to this basic law of human performance. However, professors here are by and large excellent teachers. In fact, it is difficult for me to identify any professor who I felt over-prioritized their research instead of their teaching (and considering that we are on the quarter system, that is a lot of professors). Have there been classes that I avoided because the professor had a bad reputation? Absolutely. I do not feel suffering because I had to do a little research to pick my classes.

As for the "star scholar" argument, I like having academic stars teaching me their disciplines. It is one thing

David Brooks just wrote in the New York Times an interesting op-ed about his "magic green jacket" and the current political situation facing Democrats and President Obama. One of the suggestions he mentioned in the penultimate paragraph is to create "a new wave of regional innovation clusters" that would presumably pull the economy out of the recession and renew the lease on the middle class lifestyle.

While a minor part of the overall piece, I am constantly surprised at the hubris that of those who think that innovation is something that can be legislated. Silicon Valley remains the premier research region in the United States and arguably the world. Thousands of new immigrants flock to the region every year, and thousands of new businesses and start-ups begin (and end) in the never-ending tumult of Silicon Valley's fast-paced ecosystem.

Surprisingly, the region has retained its lead in research despite competition from several other regions, some with incredibly strong backing from the government. These regions include the Route 128 corridor in Massachusetts, the Research Triangle in North Carolina and the Baltimore/Washington D.C. corridor. While the approaches have been both centralized and decentralized, no area in the country has yet arrived at the formula to duplicate Silicon Valley's success.

Analysts often point to the first-mover problem. Silicon Valley has been at the forefront of technology for so long that people with ideas come to the region to bring them to fruition. A notable recent example is Mark Zuckerberg, who created Facebook in his Harvard dormitory before moving it to Palo Alto to launch the company's growth.

However, that does not explain the region's monopoly on the high-tech sector. Costs in the region for both workers and businesses are some of the highest in the country. Secondly, the

I just finished reading the Big Squeeze by Steven Greenhouse, a book which provides vignettes of middle class workers while providing analysis of the issues facing the 21st century American economy. The book provided few original insights - it is not like employment trends has been missed by major political commentators. However, it did provide a concise explanation of the problems, and that in itself is useful.

There are a couple of large themes that can be quickly taken away. First, middle class jobs are increasingly scarce, and there is little reason to believe that the situation is going to improve. Second, businesses are going to continue to perceive their workers as "costs" rather than assets, and work hard to drive those costs down as hard as possible. Third, the types of jobs that are disappearing have steadily moved up the income chart - now even the legal work of top law firms is being outsourced, leaving top law school grads in a lurch. Finally, critical elements in the social mobility ladder of the United States have disappeared, preventing those from the lowest rungs from moving themselves up.

These themes have been clear for at least two decades. What I think is the most interesting question, one rarely raised by this book genre, is where does this take the American economy, and what does that mean for different kinds of workers?

One of my favorite measures of income inequality is the Gini coefficient, which measures how extreme inequality is in a certain population between 0 (no inequality) to 1 (maximum inequality). America had an all-time low during the early 1970s, and since then, the number has steadily risen and is unlikely to slow down. Other statistics are available, and the Big Squeeze provides dozens to show the increasing

The perhaps not-so-startling win of Spain at the World Cup in South Africa has partially obscured a far more interesting victory: a successful cup in the world's supposed basket case continent. Despite the doom and gloom from opinion leaders that the World Cup would be marred by crime, instability and corruption, South Africa appears to have been successful in producing a quality tournament without negative news.

These good feelings were further boosted by a paper released by McKinsey and Co. two weeks ago showing that economic growth on the continent is expected to be robust. Rather than just a passing moment, this growth is sustainable: a significant portion comes from knowledge-based industries and not just from expensive raw resources. Economic integration is also looking up: five African nations have recently started a new economic union that should further increase trade.

This is good for the continent, and it has attracted the attention of major economic superpowers. China, which has had a strong African plan for several years now, has been funneling billions of dollars of investments to the continent, building up infrastructure projects and educational institutions.

This investment is not without critics. Former Foreign Policy Editor-in-Chief Moisés Naím talked about the issue of Rogue Aid from countries like China and Saudi Arabia several years ago. Essentially, these countries provide billions of dollars of investment while demanding few improvements in governance. It is aid without morality, and it is making it difficult for Western governments to compete with aid programs that shutter under the weight of accountability requirements.

China, of course, is not spending out of generosity, but rather as a means to ensure the long-term stability of its economic engine by securing critical resources. The problem, today and tomorrow, is that the United States needs these resources as well, and

Originally published in the Stanford Daily as part of a column series known as Adventures in Academia that explored issues related to the Stanford University community.

The incredible jubilation felt by the students sitting in the CoHo on Election Night 2008 was almost overpowering for those of us warily watching from the chocolate-colored sofas. There was a palpable sense in the air, unwarranted as it would turn out, that the world had suddenly become brighter, that America was going to rid itself of the damage of the Bush era and bring back liberalism into politics.

Fast-forward to today, and those halcyon images seem only fleeting against the backdrop of the current political environment. President Obama's approval rating rating has plummeted across the country (and among students here as well), and it appears that the upcoming midterm elections, regardless of their outcome, will undermine the mandate he has used to push his agenda.

That is unfortunate, for while Obama's plans are certainly variable in their quality, all of them are part of a needed big vision for this country. As someone in the middle of the spectrum, it pains me to see a country like America with such a grand view of our mission on Earth to be thwarted repeatedly by special interest groups and intense partisan politics.

Thinking big is what made America the country it is today. Franklin Delano Roosevelt built the modern social safety net from scratch despite intense opposition in Congress while also defeating some of the most fearsome regimes in human history. Truman initiated the Marshall Plan to rebuild an entire continent - a plan that is still paying dividends today. At home, Eisenhower built the interstate highway system which remains the bedrock of transportation in America.

Today, we need that kind of big thinking if

Originally published in the Stanford Daily as part of a column series known as Adventures in Academia that explored issues related to the Stanford University community.

In this space, I generally focus my energies on education policy, with brief forays into mental health and personal reflection. However, there are times when my complaint box overflows and I have to clear out the backlog. Here are four everyday life issues I feel need most addressing right now at Stanford.

Issue 1: Banning drinking games at Stanford

There has been a movement in recent weeks to ban drinking games in Stanford housing (either in just public lounges or in all rooms in student dorms). I have been informed that the development of this policy comes from the actions of a handful of residents who may imbibe a wee bit much in the early Saturday hours. That situation is a cause for concern, but banning drinking games on campus is a fundamentally incorrect approach to solve the problem.

Stanford's current policy on alcohol can be described as an educational model that focuses on personal responsibility and social norming. The goal is to increase the number of moderate drinkers so that the drinking culture on campus stays reasonably tame. This policy has had great success compared to the prohibition policies of other campuses.

It is deeply disappointing that a policy that has worked reasonably well for many years would be affected by just a handful of irresponsible people. We are adults at this school with personal responsibility to handle ourselves with dignity. Those members who violate that trust should be punished, but their actions should not affect those who are responsible. As a non-drinker, I hope that we can maintain our moderate drinking culture by stopping this poorly conceived policy.

Issue 2: Stealing drinking

Originally published in the Stanford Daily as part of a column series known as Adventures in Academia that explored issues related to the Stanford University community.

In a class as large in scope as the thirty unit HumBio Core, there is bound to be some concepts that students remember better than others. For me, some elements of proteins come back in a flash, while immunology seems to be a just a fleeting memory. Why the difference, and more importantly, is there a pattern in the material that students remember and the material that they do not?

This question is at the heart of a on-going area of controversy in higher education research. Student learning outcomes vary widely across classes and even universities, yet there are few accountability measures taken by schools to ensure that graduates are learning at the appropriate level. Even if such data is collected, it is rarely distributed, preventing comparative research between institutions that might lead to better education programs.

As colleges across the country face increased scrutiny in state budgets and in front of Congress, it is imperative that we carefully evaluate proposals designed to increase accountability of academia to ensure that they do not harm the strengths of our university system.

One of the last major reforms proposed came from Former Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, who proposed a new system of accreditation of higher education to address the student outcomes issue.

For those unfamiliar with higher education governance, accreditation is the primary means of regulating universities in the United States, and organizations like the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (Stanford's accrediting association) perform reviews of campus academics to ensure that universities are meeting basic standards to offer degrees.

Unfortunately, accreditation often ignores student learning outcomes. In response, Spellings and her Commission on the Future