Below is a brief description from Port Architects and their plans to capture these emissions, through their project, Carbon T.A.P.

1. ) Algae is one of the most robust classifications of life on earth. Thriving on every continent, it is highly adaptive to any physical environment where it is able to derive energy from photosynthesis and the uptake of organic carbon, particularly in the form of CO2.

2.) Unfortunately though, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not high enough for industrial scale production of algae. However, coal/CoGen power plants or manufacturing facilities offer potential sources of high level CO2 concentrations. Also, vehicular tunnels, which can produce hundreds of millions of cubic feet of CO2 per year.

3.) Capturing even a small fraction of these CO2 emissions would offer an enormous food source for large-scale algae production. The challenge presented by these sources is holding the CO2 before it’s delivered to some vessel containing the algae.

4.) In the 2-part system below, the CO2 is captured and controlled, and is then provided by delivery to an industrial-scale algae bioreactor. In this system, CO2 emissions configured to deliver CO2 to a series of 20,000 square-foot bioreactor which can be detached for harvesting and processing of their algae corp.

5.) Many of these concentrated CO2 sources are sited near bodies of water allowing CO2 bladder to function as essentially a large pier or expanded waterfront. As the volume of CO2 needed and produced is large, thoughtful integration of the pier into its urban context is an absolute.

6.) With 18 vehicular tunnels of greater than 2,000 ft across the US, and thousands of coal and natural gas-driven power plants, deployment of adaptations of this system have the potential to reinvigorate a wide range of urban environments throughout the country.

These algae piers will hopefully become the sites of a new typology of public open space in New York that bundles waterfront access with a productive green infrastructure. I wonder if Indianapolis, with places troubled by various amounts of algae, like Eagle Creek, Geist, and Morse Reservoirs could benefit from something like the Algae Pontoon Parks? Over the past few years, there has been an aggressive accumulation of a toxic Blue-Green algae that has sprung up in these areas, harming the surrounding ecosystem and putting a leash on park activities. I’m positive the process of dealing with an issue like this is far more complex than writing a blog about it, proposing a cut-and-paste idea, but ideas have to start somewhere.

But, there definitely appears to be a new spirit surrounding green infrastructure. Just last week I was a guest at Indianapolis Museum of Art for a Pecha Kucha Night event. Twelve speakers gave their presentations, two of which had green-driven topics. Laura Henderson, one of those two, won the approval of the judges and the crowd, along with a $10,000 grant to support her project “Growing Place: The Slow Food Edible Garden at the White River State Park”. The other presentations had merit for sure, but the victory of this eco-conscious project made me feel proud that there is a culture of environmentally assertive people here in Indy. Hopefully, through more projects like Laura’s, this culture will continue to grow.

To learn more about the Carbon T.A.P. program, visit Port Architects

I had the honor of working with Wes during my time at Herron by helping him create a visualization of his One Small Project for an upcoming exhibition titled “small architecture BIG LANDSCAPES”. The exhibit – scheduled to open at the Sheldon Swope Museum in Terre Haute, Indiana, in the spring of 2010 – will showcase the works of various artists whom Wes feels offer something special to a world often overlooked, under appreciated, and ignored by the flow of mainstream culture.

Every human who has walked the surface of our planet has thought and acted in relation to the landscape. We have some understandings of these dynamics through various artists’ work including: Ansel Adams’ photography of the U.S. southwest; Frank Lloyd Wright’s design for Fallingwater; Jane Jacobs’ insights into the life of American cities; the New York City of Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man and Chase County; Kansas as portrayed by William Least Heat-Moon in PrairyErth; and Maya Lin’s monuments, installations, and buildings. At the same time, there is much that we do not know about the connections that many of Earth’s people have with their immediate landscapes today. One billion informal settlers (1/6 people worldwide) live in slums or shantytowns, twenty-five million people are currently displaced by war or natural disaster, and three thousand “homeless” people in Indianapolis will need a meal and a warm place to sleep tonight, every night. All of them inhabit the landscape, claim space, and make their way around the world. It will be argued that we have much to learn from their ideas, frameworks, and actions. This is the idea behind small architecture BIG LANDSCAPES.

The exhibit hopes to challenge our fairly conventional, middle class sensibilities regarding the landscape, and will document and interpret (and in some cases build) environments being occupied and small architecture being built in some of the most extreme, and simultaneously most common, landscapes in our world.

My hopes are that people will visit the exhibit, and view it not as an “art gallery”, but rather as an experience and opportunity to connect with others, share stories, be relational and intentional – To see the world through an old and familiar set of eyes, but with new sensitivity and awareness.

As a designer, I believe that it is important that I first view my environment in such a way that allows me to utilize my own unique skill sets in order to “mesh” with it, keeping true to its existing essence, values or beliefs rather than seeking to immediately redefine it. Through this lens of understanding it I am more in tune with its culture, its energy, and the people who inhabit it. For a large part, I think it’s common for design-minded individuals to feel as though we must constantly reinvent, recreate, or restructure the world for the future instead of first considering the existing world, and how to cater to the now.

I recently stumbled upon an article that speaks to this idea.

(Do starving African’s a favour. Don’t Feed them.)

For years, the countries of Africa have been in need of aid, and every time wealthy countries have come to the rescue with food, water, and other resources. Shipping food from places like the U.S. is costly, uneconomic, and can encourage dependency. Instead of just giving them food, why don’t we educate them on how to grow and maintain it? – using the existing landscape for growing crops and preventing drought. We’re just creating a short-term detour around the problem, and will never solve it.

I’ve also found a few other links that discuss innovations that are helping to promote agricultural and economic stimulation in developing country’s:

Q-Drum
Hippo Roller
Re-Designing Africa’s Ox-Powered Farm Tools
Innovation in African women’s farm tools

The first way in which we experience sound is Physiological. Sounds are affecting our hormone secretions all the time; our breathing, our heart-rate, and our brainwaves.Examples of this can be waking up from our alarm clock in the mornings, a doorbell being rung, or a more pleasant sound such as waves crashing that can help us to get to sleep at night.

The second way in which sound affects us is Psychological. Music is the most powerful form of sound that affects our emotions. However, it is not the only form that affects our emotions. The sound of birds chirping can make us feel safe, but when they stop, we worry. Or even waves, as mentioned in the first example. We may feel calm and relaxed when we hear them crashing.

The third way in which sound affects us is Cognitive. We can’t understand multiple people talking at once; we have to choose which person we are going to listen to. We have a very small bandwidth for processing auditory input, which is why noise found on the streets of Chicago on a busy Monday morning, for example, can be extremely damaging to productivity. People who work in those kinds of conditions have a productivity decrease of 66% as opposed to working in an office building or at home.

The fourth way sound affects us is Behavioral. The chances of someone listening to upbeat techno music while driving at a steady speed of 28 mph is unlikely. At the simplest, we move away from unpleasant sound, and toward pleasant sound. Many who work retail, and have certain types of music playing about as shoppers come and go, may experience a 28% decrease in sales due to unpleasant music or music that’s too loud. Julian shows a chart he calls SoundFlow that’s a bit hard to see, so I’ve recreated it a bit larger. This chart allows us to see the drivers of sound, analyze the soundscape, and predict the four outcomes above. Working from the bottom up allows us to choose an outcome and design a soundscape to have a desired affect. and vice-versa.

Brands like Nokia and IBM even have sounds that we all recognize, and are played thousands of times each day, which can sometimes become quite annoying after too long. Julian gives four golden rules for commercial sound:

1. Make it cognitive
2. Make it appropriate
3. Make it valuable
4. Test it, and test it again

After watching Julian’s presentation, I started to think: Can sound be experienced without hearing? Is there a 5th way? Or even more? Do we interpret sound through vision? Do the fusion of these two senses influence what we’re attracted to or drawn away from? What role does design have in the way humans interact with sound and vision? Looking out from the 3rd story window of the office building I’m currently working in, I can see that it is a beautiful fall day. The sun is shining, not a cloud in the sky, the large tree across the street has lost most of its leaves, and those that remain are gracefully swaying back and forth by a gentle wind. There are no cars bustling about, no one is walking on the sidewalks, and for once… there’s no construction near by. Because of what I see, and an existing knowledge of certain things, I can interpret what it might sound like outside, but until I open the window, allowing a higher frequency of sound to filter in, I can’t know for sure. Sure enough, it’s just as I thought. The noise is very minimal at the moment. The only consistent noise taking place is the wind. Without being able to see what’s happening outside of my window, my ability to accurately predict what sounds are taking place is poor, yet when elements are introduced, such as opening the window, my absence of sight can be interpreted using what I can hear. Using what I hear, I can begin to paint a mental picture of what my surroundings might look like, much like how we envision scenes through reading a novel or hearing a story.

LiveScience.com provides a simple breakdown of how this works in an article titled “Scientists Say We Can See Sound”. The auditory system records sound, while the visual system focuses on the visuals. A higher cognitive producer, like the brain’s superior colliculus, uses these separate inputs to create our cinematic experiences. The article continues on about researchers who trained monkeys to locate a light flashed onto a screen. When the light was very bright, they easily found it; when it was dim, it took a long time. But if a dim light made a brief sound, the monkeys found it in no time. After examining recordings from 49 neurons responsible for the earliest stages of visual processing, researchers found activation that mirrored the behavior. That is, when the sound was played, the neurons reacted as if there had been a stronger light, at a speed that can only be explained by a direct connection between the ear and eye brain regions, said researcher Ye Wang of the University of Texas in Houston.

Through the lens of design, I wonder how I’ve acted on this in some of the projects I’ve been involved with over the years. Have I created something at the expense of looking “cool” or “trendy” but in turn have pushed people away or lured them close for the wrong reasons? I am a firm believer that the products I design evoke all senses on some levels, obviously some more than others, but at least enough to influence a person to some extent on each sense alone. I believe that certain colors hold certain meanings for people, just as certain sounds represent certain experiences. Even certain textures have a role, absolutely. And what about Synesthesia–the rare ability to feel, hear, and taste colors? Together, each of these senses working together can have a tremendous impact on the future of design that I look forward to being a part of.

Just to preface the rest of the post, I’m a bit put off by the freewheeling tendencies that come with this machine. The hype, the calories, the promises – all seem empty to me. It all sort of bubbled to the surface when I read a recently posted BusinessWeek article that featured the new dispensers. The piece opened by saying “The inventor of life-saving medical devices (Dean Kamen) sees Coca-Cola’s new Freestyle fountain as a way to make progress on his plan to deliver potable water to kids worldwide.”

Coke’s Freestyle

As the article continues it moves from its inspiring headline, highlighting a potential opportunity to aid the water-deprived children of the world, to highlighting the features of the machine and advantages of its technology. So as I am reading further and further into the article I’m searching for more information on this water-aid for children plan, but to my dismay it turns out that this plan isn’t a plan at all, but rather a “What-if?” idea that may never become a plan at all. So now I’m feeling disappointed and a bit mislead. Why is it that this article needed to be highlighted with information that has almost nothing to do with the article itself? I think Steve Jobs hit it on the nose with his critique: “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want a chance to change the world?” They realized they had a pretty empty invention on their hands and tried to compensate with hypothetical situations to save the world (whose prospects are pretty bleak with the absence of an actual plan to roll out the machines in developing countries). Nonetheless, the machine hasn’t been a total failure: “Retailers testing the Freestyle have reported double-digit increases in beverage sales.” And that is where the truth comes out. These machines aren’t intended to provide potable water for thirsty children, but rather an increased profit for Coca-Cola and a higher risk of diabetes for our already 23.6 million and rising American diabetic population.

Does anything like that ever happen to you? Like when you go to the mall and see the shiny new cars next to the big banners that scream “free” or “sign up to win” promoting some large amount of money, all of which encourage you to sign up for a free* chance to win a brand new car or all expenses paid trip to somewhere exotic, but then after you’ve filled out the info card you go home to find your inbox filled with new messages from the dealer informing you that the only way you’ll have a chance at winning that brand new car or exotic trip is if you purchase one of their cars?… sigh. As a designer, I understand the ploy such verbiage can have on certain people, and how easily it can be overlooked, outweighed, or made completely irrelevant.

If the article had done without the inclusion of this water for kids idea, or even its headline choice, then I wouldn’t have had as big of an issue with it, but using it in such a way to get people’s minds off of what’s really happening is a poor means of introducing the latest and greatest for a company of such scale.

What the article is really about according to its contents…

What the article should really be about according to its headline…

“Moving together: The new mobility culture considers not only transit but also health, education, housing, waste, and social needs. No transportation system is an island; it must coordinate all shared systems for maximum effect.” Bruce Mau, Massive Change

Building better cities has been an issue that society has faced since the dawn of time, and still exists today not only in developed countries but also in developing countries. The quality of life that a city provides is not only a priority but a right for its inhabitants. With ever-increasing population, crime, social injustice, poverty, and pollution rates, we need to re-focus our priorities and resources to re-design integrative sustainable systems to improve mobility and quality of life for everyone.

We cannot talk about urban transportation until we know what type of city we want. How do we want to live? Do we want to create a city for humans or a city for automobiles? The important questions are not about engineering, but about ways to live. Enrique Penaloza, former mayor of Bogota, Colombia.

Cities such as: Bogota, Colombia; Bremen, Germany; and Curitiba, Brazil have become torchbearers of sustainable urban designs by implementing new “die eierlegende Wollmilchsau” mobility system that are sustainable, integrative, and all-inclusive.

The core of these mobility strategies is the idea of creating an intermodal system that uses various means of transport (bus, trains, planes) to reduce the dependence on personal automobile and increase dependence on public transport.

A really remarkable example of this intermodal transportation was implemented by Enrique Penaloza, former mayor of Bogota, Colombia. He was able to reinvent how his city addressed public transportation and not only improved mobility, but in the same time decreased crime and inequality.

The lack of vision of previous political figures and poor allocation of financial resources, had contributed to a degenerative cycle of dispair by they city’s citizens. The lack of infrastructure, jobs, security, equality, and social integration had all led to a diminishing quality of life.

Enrique Penaloza’s vision and belief was that “sustainable urban design can be the foundation for social justice”. According to Penaloza, redesigning the transportation system by restricting car use, improving public systems, expanding bicycle ways and creating public spaces, would be essential in the fight to increase equality to maximize social integration.

Penaloza developed the public transport called TransMilenio, stemming from the idea of going from one millennium to another. This trunk-fed system features exclusive dual bus lines: main lines for the centric routes that are fed into by smaller, articulated bus routes that reach into the outer or less dense regions. This integrated system provides access to all the population – city or suburb, rich or poor, young or old.

Foremost in Penaloza’s vision was not only to bring sustainable mobility to Bogota, but also to bring equality and safety to its citizens. Initially, this budget was created to build highway infrastructures. However, instead of choosing to benefit the 15% of the population that have a car with this plan, he instead favored the majority of the population by using this budget to provide public transportation, public spaces, and pedestrian paths. Three million people are connected through the social fabric of the TransMilenio system, which not only facilitates traffic to and from destinations, but provides space to congregate along the way.

Building a transportation system that benefits the many and not just the few has helped bolster the symbol of democracy. Allowing all residents to use the TransMilenio to reach schools libraries, hospitals, neighborhoods and parks has created richer integration within Bogota’s society, and has helped to reduce crime – ultimately changing peoples’ perceptions of the city and their quality of life.

It’s truly remarkable to see people like Enrique Penaloza, both a visionary and a design thinker, change an entire city by redesigning the public transportation and public spaces. Integrating society through these systems provided people change for the better, and improved the quality of life for the majority.

On the left-hand side is the traditional approach in which the designer/firm is presented with a framed issue, or an issue that is obvious and already known, which is then provided a solution. The projects requiring this approach are typically smaller and do not last more than a couple of months. There are also a small number of people and different backgrounds involved in the project. On the right-hand side is the newer design approach in which the designer/firm faces a situation that is less obvious and could potentially be problematic. Designers and professionals from various disciplines are engaged in framing the situation until several major problem areas or opportunities are uncovered. Multiple directions or solutions are then proposed. This is of course a gross generalization for simplicity’s sake, as both approaches can certainly become more intricate as elements and steps change through out the project cycle.

The Innovation Toolbox, an article that talks some about this shift, discusses two categories that describe the types of firms involved in each approach. They call the first type “Artful Navigation.” Design agencies like Bruce Mau Design have a focus on an arts based approach, and are generally proactive trend spotters. They prefer to think of themselves as cutting edge developers, and will constantly incorporate new trends and values into their work. In doing this, they readily offer clients new and radically different perspectives that will help to reframe questions and create new opportunities. These types of agencies resemble the more traditional design approach in the sense that they rely on intuitive methods and processes and resist a more explicit approach. Each process is unique and artistic in itself, and does not build on any explicit models or a visualization of a process. This doesn’t mean there are no systematic approaches or principles, or that they reinvent the wheel per new project. This process knowledge and understanding is very much embedded in the individuals, and is based on practical experience and intuition.

The other category the article mentions is “Scientific Navigation”. Agencies such as IDEO and Humantific, have made a point of documenting and developing explicit design methods and processes, which can be shared internally as well as externally with clients. They have a conscious process language and the methods applied are consciously debated and reflected upon. Because of this, it is much easier for them to involve clients in the process. They are able to step back from the role of designer and become process facilitators instead. In doing this, the know how and experience of each client is brought into play, becoming a very important piece of the process. The advantage being that the end solution is closely aligned with the client’s needs and situation.

The arts based and scientific navigation agencies alike help their clients through a process in which they define problems and explore new opportunities.

For more information, and to read more from this article, visit Slideshare

Changing consumer attitudes in the mid-1960s opened the door for the commoditization of design. Before that time, buyer behavior had been based on fulfilling basic needs, but in the 1960s, consumers began buying products that may or may not have fulfilled a need, but rather fulfilled a want (e.g. Avant-Garde Interiors influenced by European modernism and a humanistic aesthetic style).

This changing attitude towards design, caused it to become a very crucial element in marketing and positioning. Design could be used to appeal to people seeking a certain type of lifestyle. One of the earlier companies that successfully grasped this new concept was Habitat, a European household furnishings retailer, who featured reasonably-priced furniture with compelling design. The style of their products appealed to young, energetic, fashionable people, who were drawn to the coordinated style of home furnishings and had an appreciation for design. Purchasing from Habitat was a way for people to express their personality, lifestyle, and identity.

Without a doubt, many things have changed in the furniture industry since the 1960s, but one thing as remained. Since its introduction to the American market over 4 decades ago, the European modern-style is still enjoyed by Americans who want to express their personal and style sensibilities at an affordable price. Today’s stores, like Crate&Barrel, CB2 and IKEA have established strong positions by creating and delivering simple, yet smartly designed modern furniture, at an affordable price,by incorporating a broad range of materials, cool colors, sleek finish, and high contrast graphics.

Back in the 1960s, a new approach to marketing developed: the use of design to appeal to a new consumer orientation towards fulfilling “wants.” By learning and understanding consumer behavior (what they purchased, why they purchased it, how and when they made that purchase), smart companies recognized that mass marketing would no longer be as effective. Rather, they had to develop target, tailored strategies to address the critical aspect of what customers really wanted, not what they thought they wanted.

Design is an increasingly important element in marketing, especially as the marketplace becomes more crowded. There are a limited number of methods of lowering costs and offering low prices, but there are endless possibilities for design. With improved production methods and a society that demands customization, there will always be large market for fashionable and aesthetically appealing products. Through design, companies can create more than just products, but also experiences that satisfy the personalities, wants and lifestyles of their target market.

I like his approach in storytelling, because it communicates that his work is more than just aesthetically compelling structures. In addition to being beautiful works of art, the buildings shown in his presentation are functionally conscious of space, resources, and culture. The last project he spoke of is, in my opinion, the most amazing. He and his team are focusing on the Island of Zira, using the seven neighboring mountain peaks of Azerbaijan as inspiration. They designed the land into an inhabitable urban eco-system, completely transforming it from what is now an empty, lifeless mass of land to hopefully a beautiful life-sustaining architectural masterpiece.

Below, I’ve included some screen shots from his presentation that help summarize his ideas, as well as to represent a similar process that many architects, and designers alike, go through.

Ingels brings up this idea of Evolution vs. Revolution. Revolution often implies some sort of movement stepping away from the mainstream, exercising some form of rebellion against it, whereas Evolution implies the gradual adaptation and improvisation of new opportunities that stem from the issues of our ever-changing world. So instead of completely turning away from what we often don’t approve of, we look at it from a new angle and use it to our advantage.

Although Ingels addresses this from the viewpoint of an architect, I see this in almost every project I encounter. As a designer I am constantly searching for ways to bridge form + function with appropriateness + context. That usually means that I am faced with an issue of some kind, but instead of pushing it aside and letting someone else deal with it or hoping it will eventually work itself out, I find a way to accommodate for it in hopes that I can turn it into something useful. One thing I’ve learned through my career is that many problems are potential opportunities, and can be tackled constructively. Much like the leftover projects Ingels mentions. Sometimes a client doesn’t like what you pitch, causing a revisit to the drawing board to come up with a fresh approach. Fortunately, many of those projects can be recycled to meet the needs of other problems in different contexts later down the road, so really nothing is ever wasted.

I found his presentation inspiring. It’s amazing to see this type of approach being played out in this magnitude. Over the past month I’ve seen smaller, but just as compelling, movements happening around the world that take people on a new journey in which they engage in a whole new interaction with space.

I am very interested in this type of social transformation and will continue to post related topics.

“We believe that it is imperative for designers to think beyond their national and cultural borders in order to create visual communication that is responsive to the diversity of audiences today.”

Since its inception, the United States has welcomed and harbored immigrants upon its shore. This has yielded innumerable opportunities and the fulfillment of dreams- but it also has come with some challenges. Today, businesses still strive to understand and develop products and services that cater to the broad and varied audience of the United States.

I think it is important to understand the value of diversity and cross-cultural design not only in how we uncover, think and solve complex business and design issues, but also in the way we work, think and act.

For many of us, diversity in the workplace has become critical, especially if we’re involved in the development of new products and services targeting the larger sections of immigrant communities. Multicultural training programs and culture-center approaches have encouraged designers and other professionals to understand and manage cultural differences better and become more multiculturally mindful.

The better we know our audiences the better products and services we can offer.

“Culture influences our thoughts, words, and actions in ways that are often unrecognized and that can lead to misunderstandings, missed opportunities, and less than ideal outcomes. No matter how highly skilled, well-trained, or intelligent you are — if you are making culturally inappropriate assumptions, you will not be accurate in your assessment, meaningful in your understanding, or appropriate in your interactions in the workplace.” Sookhan Ho, Pamplin College of Business

An inability to understand cross cultural situations and different perspectives can pose serious threat. For instance, when McDonald’s launched their first restaurants in India, sales suffered because the hamburger did not appeal to a population who largely does not eat beef. Likewise in Ecuador, french fries and hamburgers are not a common part of the diet yet McDonald’s doesn’t seem to be changing their menu for us anytime soon. One company that got it right is Kentucky Fried Chicken. Although it’s an American fast-food chain like McDonald’s, KFC has been able to succeed by incorporating home-style sides like rice, lentils, and menestra into their Ecuador menu. They offer “quality food” to serve with chicken, which is a mainstay of our country’s culture, in contrast to the hamburger and french fries of McDonald’s.

Considering that the fast-food market in the United states has become rather inundated, I am glad to see that KFC is expanding its franchise operations to the international market. This penetration strategy to reach the rapidly growing fast food industry of Latin America, offsets the plateauing sales in the U.S. And KFC will succeed, over the other guys, simply by understanding the culture better.

KFC’s strategy of expanding through franchising and diversification, yields stores owned by local entrepreneurs who were aware and more in touch with the community they are serving. These owners’ awareness of cultural differences, language, and customs has prepared KFC to better compete in some regions over the popular giant McDonald’s.

Obama’s recent plan to “smarten up the youth of America” by rewarding teachers and lengthening the school year has left me feeling a little queasy. Seeing that I’m only 5 years out of high school, the reverberation of cheese wagons, SAT testing, and home rooms still permeate my senses every now and then. My experiences growing up in the public school system has left a sour taste in my mouth from careless teachers and outrageous “rules,” to standardization up the wazoo. Being a youth leader has also helped me keep up on what’s happening inside the school walls, as well as the inside the minds of the students. Since the time I graduated high school, it seems that schools have become more militant, enforcing more and more discipline in efforts to “deal” with students unwilling to walk in line. This is a cheap, lazy, and insensitive approach put forth by people who have lost touch what it’s like to be a child, especially now vs. 20-30+ years ago. The bar for achievement is set higher every year as getting into college has become a must-do, rising tuition costs, narrowing job opportunities, and decreasing pay rates create anxiety for nearly everyone. Most of the children I interact with on a weekly basis have experienced some form of physical mistreatment, neglect, drug & alcohol abuse, or gang involvement, which cause them to have very little ambition or self confidence, both of which are crucial for success. Then what about the children who “just don’t seem to understand,” or the individuals who aren’t into math or science, and just can’t seem to grasp their minds around the concepts. Is it the teachers way of teaching, or are these kids simply broken? I know these kids all too well. In first grade I was diagnosed with A.D.D. by a teacher who characterized me as disruptive, socially awkward, and irrational. She decided that the best thing for me would be to put me on this stuff called Ritalin, which basically turned me into an emotionless zombie. So everyone was happy, everyone but me of course. Aside from this happening to me, it happens to kids all the time. In my opinion, a typical first-grader who isn’t hyperactive, socially awkward or irrational to some extent, has a problem, but to try control a child’s personality with drugs is disgusting. It’s also a pretty obvious way of adults saying “I don’t know how/or want to deal with this kid so let the drugs take care of it for me, that way I will be happier.” There are other, less harmful, ways of dealing with this that people need to be informed of for the sake of their children, not for the sake of themselves. So now that I’ve vented a bit, on to my question…

“Instead of keeping students in the classroom longer and relying on that to solve our intelligence deficit, why don’t we focus on revamping how and what kids are being taught? Again, to me this is focusing on the kids inability to understand, when actually I think the problem is leaning more toward teaching efforts and curriculums.”

Arne Duncan, Education Secretary, comments on Obama’s plan by stating; “We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day. The calendar may have once made sense, but today, it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. Our children spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea…” You think keeping kids in school is going to entice them to want to learn more? Is that your only solution? That to me is a simple and quick fix. You know what hasn’t changed much since our “nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land” days? The material. We’ve standardized everything and use it to measure a student’s ability to comprehend. Then universities look at the scores from standardized tests like the SAT and ACT to evaluate whether or not a kid is competent enough to succeed in their institution. Kids spend way more time memorizing facts and linear information than they do exploring and experiencing open-ended avenues in which they are in charge of how they interpret and perceive. We need a new method for evaluating students. They ought to be exposed to every opportunity to uncover and develop their own personal interests, that way when kids leave high school maybe they will have a better idea of what they want, what they excel at, and where they fit in. Also, maybe there won’t be as many drop outs or undergrads who end up spending 5+ years achieving their bachelor’s, or switching majors numerous times.

On Wednesday, October 2, 2008, I sat in on a lecture given by Daniel Pink, author of several books on changing the world of work, who came to Butler University to talk about his newest, and perhaps most provocative book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. Basically, he highlighted education and how everything is focused on material dominated by the left side of the brain; very standardized, linear, subject matter that teaches kids what they need to know to survive life after high school. What is excluded are material occupied by the right side of the brain; functions dealing with the visual, spatial, perceptual, and intuitive information. “They” say that our right-brained nature is developed during our infant and early childhood years, for example word and picture association, art classes that allow kids to be “creative,” and recess. I believe that there is life for the right brain after high school, and kids should be exposed to a healthy dose of the complexity, ambiguity, and paradox that it occupies. There needs to be a balance, a mesh, of both worlds, not emphasizing one or the other at different stages of life. Below, I’ve posted a link to a video clip of Daniel Pink. He raises an interesting point in the video when he says the he chose to leave writing for politics because he felt that his internal-voice was being suffocated– this all happening obviously later on in his life. I say, why wait until then to allow that to happen? Why can’t curating personality, ideologies, and nurturing creativity happen earlier on in life to ensure a more fulfilling future?

Daniel Pink