Fri 22 Aug 2008 – 10.35
exceptionally good-looking people, photographed by Tony Pettinato
If you, like me, are in awe of Barack Obama’s graphical prowess and air-tight branding and propaganda, then you probably know that his campaign has had serious resonance with voters under 30. But why?
This article from Ad Age discusses Obama’s campaign success and addresses issues relating to design, messaging, technology, media, and to a lesser degree, politics.
Good read if you’re interested.
posted by Scott in life, movies & media.
College Admins Say Drinking Age Should Be 18
Wed 20 Aug 2008 – 12.45
For those who don’t know, the minimum drinking age in America is 21. It used to be 18 back in the 60s and 70s, but after pressure from highway safety groups, the Federal Government decided that any state with a lowered drinking age would not receive highway funding. So every state raised it back.
This is, of course, one of the most fundamental social oddities in our society. ‘Underage’ drinking is an institution all its own and has spawned an entire subculture dedicated to scoring booze, not to mention half the police force of every town exists solely to bust kids from drinking before they’re legal.
But now the presidents of many universities are pushing for a lowered drinking age (back to 18) in an effort to control binge drinking and the elicit partying by students. They figure that if students can have legal, legitimate access to alcohol, they won’t go fuckin’ nuts trying to get drunk. Makes sense because most people I know will testify that they didn’t drink the same once they turned 21.
However, the plan has come under fire from MADD and other groups who say this will cause the number of drunk drivers to skyrocket. More teens drinking mean more teens dying on the roads.
So who’s right? Well, both groups have a good point.
posted by Scott in education, health & fitness, life.
Tue 19 Aug 2008 – 11.10
Now that it’s back-to-school time, we should examine a question that seems to be on everyone’s mind: Is College a massive waste of time (and money)?
This time, an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal highlights the absurdity of the quest for degrees:
First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn’t meet the goal. We will call the goal a “BA.”
Well, when you put it like that…
This reminds me of a philosophy employed my friend (and occasional guest on the podcast) Mike Rogoff. He states that he, and reasonably smart people in general, can learn the day-to-day tasks of any job, in any profession, in two weeks. In large part, I agree. The ability to perform a job has little to do with what you learned in school and more to do with raw talent. However, every job has subtleties and trade secrets that only come over time.
For example, you might be able to learn some Photoshop tasks in two weeks, but having used the software for over ten years, my hands work by themselves and I find it hard to explain what I’m actually doing. So maybe in two weeks you can learn 85% of any job — a long tail situation.
The point is, college may or may not be required for a job. However, it’s a crappy ritual that we all seem to be confronted with. Should we buck the system and try to get around it, or go to school and try to excel within the framework that exists.
Chime in with your thoughts.
posted by Scott in careers, education.