I think this should be sort of obvious (and I've mentioned it in this newsletter in the (distant) past) but it always bears repeating that your employer is not looking out for your best interests when it makes decisions. Nor should it. "For this reason, every one of us must have a career strategy, and that strategy should be guided by your industry’s trajectory. You should be fine-tuned to the intricacies of your profession. You have no choice. You have to self-develop to stay relevant." That's why I'm still learning even as we speak and why you should be too.
This takes me back to many of the points I addressed in Arlington when I talked about the real advantage elite universities offer their students. "Tangible inequalities — that which can be seen and measured, like money or access — get the majority of the attention, and deservedly so. But inequalities that live in your mind can keep the deck stacked against you long after you've made it out of the one-room apartment you shared with your dad." It doesn't apply to everyone, and it doesn't apply evenly, but it applies. What's important to understand it that it is addressing this - and not access to learning content - that will enable equity.
This is a pretty good statement of the issues surrounding learner voice in the development of their own education programs, though I think it ends with a bit of a thud. Before you get to that disappointing finish, though, there are some good points. For example: "no one considers anything a person who thinks in a way that favours both imagination and practicality says because they are not following what society wants them to follow." P.S. it was Francis Bacon who said "knowledge is power", in 1597.
I have said in the past that we see what we are looking for. This is confirmation of that. "Our findings provide evidence that the stereotypes we hold can systematically alter the brain’s visual representation of a face, distorting what we see to be more in line with our biased expectations." Our expectations play a critical role in perception. That's why there is no such thing as 'theory-neutral data'. We need to be aware of the way our subjective perceptions in turn shape our expectations. "Men, and particularly black men, were initially perceived 'angry,' even when their faces were not objectively angry; and women were initially perceived 'happy,' even when their faces were not objectively happy."
The key question is "Are math and reading test results strong enough indicators of school quality that regulators can rely on them?" The evidence on this isn't clear. "There is surprisingly little rigorous research linking them to the long-term outcomes we actually care about." There is some evidence, such as this, but frankly it reads like pseudoscience. Why? "Achievement tests are only designed to capture a portion of what our education system hopes to accomplish," for example (says the author) character or life skills. And other skills (such as art or music) may be necessary for students' later-life success. "We should be considerably more humble about claiming to know which teachers, schools, and programs are good or bad based on an examination of their test scores." Agreed.
I think there's a point to this post, which is why I'm linking to it, but I think it could probably have been explained more clearly. Essentially the argument is this: companies have shifted their thinking from treating other agencies as 'externalities' to thinking of them as the network. This shift in thinking is important, because it reflects a change from thinking of them as a net cost to thinking of them as the most effective way to produce certain business outcomes. "What assets were for the industrial firm, network effects are for the post-industrial firm." These network effects reflect a value of a company that is far greater than the assets it may hold. Apple's position, for example, as the centre of a network of developers is far greater than it would be if it had all these developers in-house.