Can Education Save U.S. Technology?

This week’s Clue led to an interesting response from Ed Dodds. He’ll be on the blogroll here within minutes, but first I’ve decided to post his words, interspersed with my responses, not because I’m so bright but because what he says is important.

I think THE KEY issue is that while being a tech C-Suite guy or sales guy is still tenable in the US economy, becoming a technologist is a losing economic equation. Technology assumes a college education; Tamara Draut, in Strapped : Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead, makes the case that for young folks you can’t earn what it costs to live with the debt acquired during schooling.

Too, there was a report on To the Point (NPR) yesterday a.m. about the fact that women outperform men all the way thru higher ed. But the popular media says women shy away from math and sciences ( hence tech careers – other than project managers – organizers rather than discoverers). (And there is still a glass ceiling phenomenon.)

This, I’m proud to say, is something we can change, and are changing. Surprisingly, a lot is happening at my old school, Rice. Meet our science dean, Kathleen Matthews. And our engineering dean, Sallie Keller-McNulty. Who filled the role of superstar after Dr. Smalley passed away? I’d say it would be Naomi Halas (above). I won’t even go into the undergraduate who unlocked the secret of nerves’ speed. Johanna Schaub.

Lawrence Summers was wrong about women. You just have to find ’em, work with ’em, nurture their careers. They’re great.

The President says he wants more science and math types but have
you seen any federally funded higher ed monies or student loan
forgiveness programs targeted toward achieving these which don’t
involve a military career? I know of only the NIH’s loan forgiveness
program.

If you’re looking for someone to defend a Bush era policy, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

A second issue is that we don’t incent collaboration –
collaboration is the bedrock of innovation. When’s the last time you
heard of a collaborative development team being comped extra for
providing a truly elegant SOA which really met the customers
requirements? Isn’t that what a market of clients who truly value a
good app would produce? My perception is that the tech business
C-Suites are filed with sales side guys, not technologists, who like to
talk in team sports metaphors but where the rubber meets the road their
stock options and bonuses are keyed to individual performance. They
talk about "teams" but only one player per team gets to be the
"superstar." Increasingly, the technology side of these houses are
getting no targeted incentives, often being down-salaried or offshored.
And disparate attempts by technologists to meaningfully organize
continue to fail.  (Ironically, that’s why open source continues to
grow. The contributors more likely to stand out and be identified (and
eventually) appreciated.)

Bingo! One economic result of open source is to switch the emphasis
on budgeting away from marketing and toward programming. The money
there is often mis-directed toward stars rather than those who can
build teams, but I think that, with time and experience, we’re finding
that can change.

My lovely bride, for instance, is not only an
excellent programmer, but a good teammate, which is one reason she’s
still rising at her employer while other, male colleagues have fallen
off the ladder. I think this speaks directly to your earlier point about women as well.

My point being is that the US can’t run software and IT ( and other
tech fields ) like a "free market" and incent only the superficial
elements (sales, C-Suite) and continue to outsource ( down-salary ) the
part the firm rhetoric claims is valuable. If this economy wants
technologist it needs to learn how to remove the debt front load (like
it does with lawyer and doctor school loan forgivenesses ) or just shut
up about it. The US economy needs to wise up — in a national where
these tech firms are traded publicly, its time for the institutional
share holders to demand real time metrics which prove that technologist
incentives are actually occurring — or we need to stop with all the
meritocracy blather in the IT press and admit it is still the same old
good ol’ boy network.

OK, Ed. Now you’re just preaching to the choir.

I don’t think change is impossible. I think that, in the face of
failure, change is more possible than ever. This decade has been a
complete failure in terms of U.S. science and technology, and I hope
that what emerges from it are new policies which can turn things around.

I think Ed hopes so as well. He’s just less optimistic than I am.