Education is the kindling of a flame: How to reinvent the 21st-century university – Otto Scharmer

MIT Sloan Sr. Lecturer Otto Scharmer

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Otto Scharmer

From Huffington Post

“Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” This quote from Plutarch is as true today as it was two thousand years ago. Still, the misconception of education as a vessel-filling activity remains. In this column, I outline an idea that could reshape our universities while also prototyping new ways of addressing urgent societal challenges. The kindling of the flame that Plutarch talked about has never been more relevant than now.

Let’s start with 2017

Last week my column focused on 2017:

  • The year 2017 mirrored the epochal year 1917 by putting a new challenge in front of us: the challenge of vertical development.
  • By “vertical development” I mean the capacity to deal with disruptive change, which requires us to let go of the past and to let come the future, to shift our awareness from one state to another. In the language of tech: vertical development is about suspending your habit of installing yet another app and instead upgrading your entire operating system.
  • From that perspective we can interpret the current global surge of terrorism, fundamentalism, xenophobia, Trumpism, and autocracy as expressions of the same underlying phenomenon: the missing capacity as a society to respond to challenges in generative ways, by evolving ourselves “vertically,” by upgrading the way we listen and attend, the way we converse and think, and the way we organize and coordinate in the context of larger systems.

Read More »

The GOP plan to turn students into Trump voters – Michael Whinston

MIT Sloan Fellows Professor of Management  Michael Whinston

From Boston Review

Much has been written about who the likely “winners” and “losers” are if the Republican-controlled Congress is able to pass a version of its tax bill. The middle class: losers; the wealthy, who own nearly all of the stock in U.S. corporations that isn’t owned by foreigners: winners. Those whose income comes from wage earnings: losers; those whose income comes from “passive” ownership of businesses: winners.

It has even been suggested that several geographic distinctions in the legislation may be “payback” for how California, New York, and other coastal blue states voted in the 2016 election. Taxpayers in high local and property tax states such as California and New York, for example, are losers in the GOP plans while Texans and others in low-tax “Red” states are winners.

If that seems like an overly sensitive reading, consider this: under the GOP plans, the ability to deduct personal casualty losses from wildfires and earthquakes would be phased out. The deduction for damage from hurricanes and floods, however, would be kept. As California State Senator Mike McGuire, a Democrat whose district includes areas ravaged by wildfires, told the New York Times, “. . .it’s hard not to think that Congress has their sights set on the Golden State.”

But the aims of this legislation are more politically ambitious than mere retribution, and nowhere is this more evident than in the House bill’s assault on higher education. If enacted, three provisions promise to have a devastating effect on college students, graduate students, and higher-education institutions. First, the House bill eliminates the deductibility of interest payments on student loans—a deduction that more than 12 million people used in 2015, according to the New York Times. Next, it taxes the tuition grants given to graduate students, grants that enable them to forego entering the workforce and instead pursue a Masters degree or PhD. As a result, a typical graduate student on a $20,000 stipend and a tuition waiver could end up owing nearly $10,000 in additional tax. And finally, it taxes the endowment investment income of roughly seventy universities and liberal arts colleges, reducing the funds available for undergraduate and graduate scholarships.

While these changes will help offset the massive tax reductions for the rich, they are a pretty small drop in the bucket towards that goal. And it is strange that pro-growth and pro-investment Republicans would sign off on something that so harms those who want to invest in human capital. So why then did the House pass this bill? The answer can be found by looking at the 2016 election results. Read More »

4.0 Lab: The future of food, finance, health, ed, & management–Otto Scharmer

MIT Sloan Sr. Lecturer Otto Scharmer

MIT Sloan Senior Lecturer Otto Scharmer

From Huffington Post

Last week, Amazon acquired Whole Foods in a move that has many wondering what this means for the direction of the economy. In my view, Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods does to organics what Uber did to the sharing economy: it takes something that was born out of a different economic logic (a grocery store dedicated to healthy food) and then molds and morphs it to fit into an economic operating system that is firmly based in the old paradigm—i.e. in a paradigm that aims for world domination rather than serving a goal of shared prosperity and well-being for all. 

In this post, inspired by a number of gatherings with change makers across sectors in China, Europe, and the Americas during the past few weeks, I outline a framework for understanding how the current limits of capitalism we are bumping up against in sectors such as food, finance, health, education and business are all related to the same outdated economic logic or “operating system” (OS). We need a new economic operating system, one that reinvents how we work together as neighbors, as businesses, as cities and as larger systems. Below I describe briefly the evolution of these five sectors from OS 1.0 to where we are today, which in most cases is OS 2.0 or 3.0.

The pressing challenges of our time, i.e. the challenge of losing our environment (ecological divide), our societal whole (social divide), and our humanity (spiritual divide) calls for reinventing our systems of food, health, education, finance and management towards 4.0. This essay lays out the rationale for OS 4.0 and a possible way to get us there through an Asian-American-European initiative called 4.0 Lab.

Five Sectors, One Problem

As the labels of the new economy have gone mainstream (green, organic, sharing economies) the underlying economic reality stays the same. That is to say, the immense buying power of giants like Amazon squeeze the supply chain, workers, farmers, and the planet through the same patterns of exploitation and structural violence that gave rise to the movement for a new economy in the first place.

On one level you could describe the problem by saying that companies like Amazon and Uber misperceive the new economy as just another app that runs on their old corporate operating system (i.e. world domination through economies of scale). In reality, though, the new economy is not just another app—it’s a radical upgrade of their entire operating system. The difference between the old and the new paradigms can be summarized in three words: ego vs. eco. Ego-system awareness means “me first”, while eco-system awareness means an awareness that focuses on the well-being of all.

There is a profound systemic barrier that exists in all major sectors today. It’s not only the mainstream players like Amazon and Uber that are stuck in their current economic operating systems; many of the innovators who once broke through that model are now also stuck. The global food system is still profoundly destructive. The health system is still sick. The educational system is unable to learn. The global financial system is heading full throttle into the next crash—as if 2008 never happened. Foundations and philanthropists still place their assets in the old economy, thereby harming people and planet, in order to use some of the profits to fund projects that alleviate symptoms but don’t deal with root causes. The innovators in all these spaces are stuck in the niches that first gave them space to develop something new. But now these niches are increasingly crowded, and mainstream players adopt the new labels and sound bites while often perpetuating the old models.

Read More »

American children need to stop being taught to fear the topic of race – Evan Apfelbaum

MIT Sloan Asst. Prof. Evan Apfelbaum

MIT Sloan Asst. Prof. Evan Apfelbaum

From Quartz

The killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed African American teenager from Florida—and the jury’s subsequent acquittal of George Zimmerman, the white man who shot him. The fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed African American teenager from Ferguson, Missouri, by white policeman Darren Wilson—and the decision by a grand jury not to indict the officer. The massacre of nine African Americans by a white supremacist at a Charleston church in June 2015. These are just a sampling of violent racially charged incidents that have taken place over past three years.

These episodes have sparked rage, disillusionment, sorrow, resentment, and confusion. According to a New York Times/CBS News pollconducted last month, nearly six in 10 Americans, including majorities of both white and black people, think race relations in the US are generally bad, and nearly four in 10 say the situation is worsening.

Yet in spite of this awareness and introspection, our country is still incapable of a coherent, intelligent national conversation about race. Indeed, the subject of race is so sensitive and so volatile that most people are apt to avoid it altogether. Why is that?

Read More »

Harnessing technology — David Schmittlein

From The Financial Times

David Schmittlein, dean of MIT Sloan School of Management, discusses the effect of the digital economy on management education with FT Business Education Editor Della Bradshaw.

Watch the video at The Financial Times.

David Schmittlein is the John C Head III Dean and Professor of Marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management.