I don't know. This seems to be the thrust of his arguments:
"By delegating information curation to multiple independent parties with demonstrated domain knowledge and critical ability, I ensure that what I read is not a mere reflection of what I believe."
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Do you have any specific critique of "Abnormal Returns" and "The Big Picture," the curators he cites?
Now that organizations like Khan Academy have traction and resources, I think they'll be able to bridge the gap. They'll be able to iterate as they receive feedback from the educational community.
We have arrived at a point where innovation in education is just beginning. Khan Academy doesn't have all of the answers, but they have made a significant contribution to the marketplace of ideas and tools, which will continue to evolve and grow.
That type of innovation is the key to significant progress. And this sort of discussion will drive it forward.
So many people seem eager to pick the winners and losers in this space right now. It is a bit early for that.
Investors want higher margins but obviously Amazon is investing substantially in itself. So far, though, Bezos seems to be winning the tug of war. Many analysts are glad to see higher revenue and feel that Amazon is cementing its position at the top of the ecommerce world. AMZN shares are up over 5% despite the earnings miss.
I wonder if the green usernames may actually help posts by new users gain traction. I found myself more likely to take a look--curious to see what sort of submissions new users are offering.
"Picoprojectors are a nascent feature addition to smartphones. Although very small in number, this category promises to create higher multiples of traffic due to the high bandwidth required to project images and videos from an advanced mobile device."
I'm not so sure, though. Will picoprojectors really change consumption habits that dramatically?
I'm glad the NYT is shedding light on this topic but, perhaps the most important aspect of standards based grading is almost burried in this article.
One of the basic premises of SBG is that students know exactly what knowledge and skills they have to master. They are assessed and then encouraged to address weaknesses so that they can be re-assessed. This is opposed to a "gotcha!" based assessment system.
This approach can have a profound impact on students because it encourages them to assess their own learning and take the initiative to grow and improve.
Just to offer another data point: I almost never watch videos but was interested enough to do so in this case. It was brief and offered enough to convince me that this might be my go-to application for managing my projects and tasks.
After playing with it for a few minutes, I am excited by its simplicity and ease of use. I've bounced around from Google docs to omni outliner to paper and pencil with just about everything in between, but I'm glad to have this tool at my disposal.
I just want to give a nod to the work and writing that Dan Meyer makes available on his blog. If you want to get a glimpse of the future of secondary math education, this is the place to look.
I appreciate Fred's candor in this post and I find his position reasonable.
This seems to be a response to PG's essay about superangels, including this section of it:
"So I think VC funds are seriously threatened by the super-angels. But one thing that may save them to some extent is the uneven distribution of startup outcomes: practically all the returns are concentrated in a few big successes. The expected value of a startup is the percentage chance it's Google. So to the extent that winning is a matter of absolute returns, the super-angels could win practically all the battles for individual startups and yet lose the war, if they merely failed to get those few big winners."
Recent blogs have taken issue with this claim, but I would like to see more throw their hats into the ring and specifically address the shifting dynamics among VCs, superangels, and founders.
No Child Left Behind aims to shed light on poor performing schools in part by requiring them to elevate graduation rates in order to meet "adequate yearly progress" goals.
Many schools are addressing the perceived urgency of these federal mandates by doing whatever they can to get the kids out the doors in four years.
Not saying that Facebook deserves a $100b valuation, but, in all fairness, a PE ratio of 20 isn't realistic either. Facebook is perceived as the growth company that Google used to be. Investors will be willing to pay a premium for that.