How kool is your skool?

This post is like a bad infection that I really need to just belch out so I can get on with my life. This is another topic that would take a dissertation to do justice to it (not to mention it presents the dual peril of bothering friends and making me look preachy), so I hesitated about even mentioning it. The demons won’t go away, however, so I lay myself down on the chopping block…

You see, I read this article the other day that everyone else on earth, apparently, read too. I was excited because it expressed some of the visceral thoughts I have about education in America. If you’ve read my last couple posts, you know this is an issue on my mind.

The ultimate message, and the conclusion I have reached over the last few years, is this: there are incredibly gifted kids that don’t end up as undergraduates at elite colleges. This isn’t (mostly) to detract from those elite schools, but more a statement about 1) how other schools are attracting phenomenal students because it’s getting crowded at the top, 2) an acknowledgement that some bright minds simply don’t blossom (academically) during the high school years, and 3) that some sharp and driven minds don't ever find their real outlet in school. Futhermore, although this guy doesn’t say if he agrees with me or not, in my opinion, far too much emphasis is placed on standardized test scores.

Actually I can’t relate to the students he discusses who are rejected from Harvard, but have unbelievably accomplished stats. What I relate to is the author’s experience and the attitude he has about his own kids. The former do research for NASA while in high school and travel in Europe with orchestras during the summers. He and I worked in pizza restaurants, shoveled gravel, or put in sprinkler systems. Like his kids, my friends and I learned life lessons during high school by skiing on the weekends instead of doing pre-calculus homework and reading history textbooks.

My problems rest much more in undergraduate education than with graduate education. I think graduate programs do a better job of sniffing out the best candidates based on a broader set of considerations. Also, if you’re getting an advanced degree from any school, you’re probably quite driven and likely have an active mind. Furthermore, what you become during your undergraduate years (and afterwards) has much more to do with who you are, while what you become during your high school years has more to do with what you were born into.

Elite undergraduate schools serve an important role. There needs to be a place where the truly brilliant and the truly driven (or some combination of both) can congregate and push the limits of human thinking. But let me say two things: while the wealthy in this country have such an enormous advantage in training their children for these overemphasized standardized tests, getting their children into elite summer training programs, privately influencing high-level people with control over admissions, and offering to forfeit the entire $50,000 for a year in school instead of asking for grants and loans, this is simply not a meritocracy and you cannot be assured that you are giving every bright student the right consideration. Again, this doesn’t apply to everyone from wealth, but we do have a problem here. Secondly, don’t think for a second that you have such a monopoly on the best minds. You will soon be paying more attention to schools that right now fall below your radar.

To answer upfront any speculation about bias, I’ll give the disclaimer that my SAT scores were better than average but certainly not adequate to compete for the top schools. The one quite competitive school I applied to (still, a notch below the best) didn’t particularly like me and slapped me back to their waiting list. These realities haunted me for years and when I awakened intellectually in college my victories were tempered by ruinous memories of underperformance and rejection at the age of 17. Seventeen years old. It took me many years to see beyond this.

When given the chance at another standardized test (GRE), I knew deep down that it would not serve as an adequate measure of my intelligence. However, I wanted to forever quell any lingering doubts about my capabilities on this front. It was personal. So I signed up for that test, got all pumped up, memorized some vocabulary, looked over a bit of high school math, went in there, freaked out, and froze up in the middle. The computer generated scores that said I was pretty mediocre. But this time, I wasn’t having any of it. Pissed off at the world, I marched back in there, showed that test who was boss and sat back for my scores. But when the computer spat out scores that supposedly told me I should apply to really competitive grad schools, I felt anesthetized. Was this really any moment of elation?

No. Not really.

“What an empty metric”, I thought to myself as I walked the DC streets back to work. I know so many sharp thinkers with truly novel ideas who wouldn’t score well on that test for one reason or another. Or what if like me, they had a bad experience the first time and never reconciled that with another test? So I thought back to high school and how before my our schoolwide SAT prep courses (sorry, mom!) my friends and I would take beer bongs, then show up and make people laugh instead of memorizing lists of vocabulary and reviewing how to deal with an arctangent. A couple months later, we came in one Saturday morning, were convinced that we weren’t that smart by a really long test, and called it good. Maybe one or two of my friends took it again. Most of us didn’t. We had other high school stuff to attend to, just like countless other high school kids across the country. I also think back to my college years when I encountered some bonafide brilliant people that forever changed my perspective about what intelligence is and how we measure it. For various reasons, these kids weren’t at Stanford.

What I’m trying to say here is that as someone who’s scored both underwhelmingly and quite well on standardized tests, I hope I have atleast a balanced opinion (although, yes, my argument that graduate schools are more balanced with their admissions would fit nicely into my scoring history…don’t worry, I see you). When you’re 25, you have likely developed the maturity and wisdom to know that standardized tests simply cannot encapsulate the breadth of an individual’s intellectual capabilities. But when you’re 17 years old, it’s different. This metric has been so overemphasized as to devastate swarms of great, young thinkers and instill a hideous arrogance in a few others.

Although I do think genetics contributes partially to an individual’s level of intelligence, research is amassing that suggests their experiences (nurture) are atleast, if not quite a bit more so, important in molding a 17 year old’s mind. So, please, let us all stop freaking out so much about who ends up in what undergraduate school and what a kid scores on a test at the age of 17.

So, I have a couple things to say to some people who aren’t reading this:

Elite colleges (and their students…a number of which are my friends): First of all, I’m sorry but you place too much emphasis on standardized test scores. But much more importantly, there’s something else. Most of you are filled with exceedingly bright, hardworking people. I commend that. Really, I do. You, however, need to keep in mind that there are other kids in schools you wouldn’t suspect with marvelously nimble minds who, for one reason or another, didn’t draw the attention of the big names when they were 17 years old. You might be surprised to find out how little separates you from a number of those kids. So quit namedropping and keep innovating!

High schools (including teachers and parents): for the love of god, stop placing so much emphasis on these standardized tests. Instead, try to instill a love of learning in the students and teach them why learning is important and enjoyable. I promise you this will pay off eventually. Are you looking for kids who get accepted into flashy schools or are you trying to produce people who will make a real difference in the world? (no, they are certainly not mutally exclusive, but you get the picture) In my opinion, the focus on test scores distorts young minds and will backfire in the end. Not to mention, if a kid falls in love with learning on his/her own terms, the right scores will follow. This may not happen at the age of 16 or 17 because there’s lots of distractions while high school kids grapple with the transition from adolescence to adulthood including a maelstrom of physical, emotional, and mental challenges. But it will happen and that success story will trace its roots back to the foundational education you offered. And my last point, we need more innovation and less rote learning. We need analysis, not automatons. Creativity should not be squashed, but encouraged. Please, please work on this.

My two buddies from high school English class are both at Harvard now. Another brilliant friend from high school was working on installing refrigeration systems, last I heard. A couple friends have PhD’s in physics from MIT and Stanford, a couple others are budding artists working lame day jobs to pay the bills. A few people are going to medical school, a couple are farming, and some are learning about raising families while trying to excel professionally, too. The thing is, I don’t care what you are, where you are, or what you’re trying to become so long as you’re working hard to get there, applying your mind, and have a reason for what you’re doing.

If you have the opportunity to study at the best institutions in the world, damn, take it! If I get that chance, I’ll do the same thing. But just as those cherished acceptance letters wouldn’t cement my contribution to humanity, neither would a degree from a state school mean my thinking couldn’t be the most innovative around.

So, yeah, shake what your mama gave you, because she’s not gonna shake it for you.

Yes, it's quite nice

Alright, time to flesh out a couple things, lest this URL decay into a rant space. We’re still in serious-mode, so let’s discuss entitlement today.

The topic of entitlement is a precarious one to broach. I hesitated before mentioning it in my last post for two reasons: 1) it raises hackles regardless of your background, and 2) the side issues associated with it are nuanced and complicated.

But put quite simply, living in New York pushed this topic to the forefront of my mind because you can’t escape the disparity between the top and the bottom. The city is a small space so you see everything. Furthermore, the rich are richer and, often, the money is older. To a lesser degree DC had a similar effect, but it was less directly focused on economics and more on prestige of job (which, I think, is eventually related to economics).

You can’t quantify the concept of entitlement. It’s really a behavioral issue obliquely related to number-friendly stats like economics and race. But what you can do is cringe at the way it distorts a human being’s persona.

Wealth is not the inherent evil here. The ‘bad’ wealthy aren’t bad because they’re wealthy. Just as an Hispanic child of illegal immigrants in East LA can’t dictate or change his origins, neither can the caucasian daughter of a Manhattan Hedge Fund manager growing up in Darien, Connecticut. Furthermore, there’s nothing evil about being a ‘Manhattan Hedge Fund manager’ or a caucasian (I hope!) or a daughter (although I might argue differently at times).

What I’m talking about here are over-privileged individuals who are never taught as children--and never take the responsibility to learn as adults--that they’re just lucky and not inherently better. This starts with an upbringing defined by the best schools, the right type of sophisticated language spoken, interacting with influential people, and the leisure-time to process all this cherished information. What follows are overinflated and overhyped test scores (another post), the corresponding colleges to which they’re admitted (also another post), the types of graduate programs they’re admitted to, and the types of companies who hire them. Guess what, then you start back at the beginning with the next generation.

I want to state very clearly that this doesn’t apply to every individual born into wealth, who succeeds in school and thrives professionally. This applies only to individuals like that who don’t have the insight know that many others could accomplish similar things given the right opportunities and who consider this ‘success’ their birthright. That’s entitlement and that’s what I’ve seen too much of over the past couple years, especially in the young professional world of Manhattan.

I have nothing against wealth. I hope to be rewarded nicely (money being a significant part of that compensation) for my contribution to humanity’s progress. I plan to work for my wealth and I plan to enjoy it once it arrives. I, overall, align with capitalists who think that competition and reward are key ingredients to a thriving society. If someone who’s earned their wealth deems it important to invest in their children’s futures, that’s their prerogative and should be respected. The onus, however, first falls upon them to instill in their kids that they shouldn’t rely upon inherited privilege. Furthermore, once those kids transition to adulthood, it’s then the children’s responsibility to act in a way that consciously acknowledges the inequalities from which they’ve benefited. They don’t need to feel badly, they only need to be aware and respectful.

The side issues here are apparent and abundant. To name a few: nature vs. nurture, standardized testing, racial disparity, and broadly, education. Before I stick my neck out and spout about other things I don’t take the time to defend, I’m gonna put a cork in it.

Hopefully that wasn’t too ranty.

Rant rant. Ranty ranty roo. Raaaaant. Rant.

Amen.

The State (Illinois) of my Union

If you're one of the few I've talked to lately, you might want to save your current optometry prescription and not read this. Even if we haven’t spoken lately, you still might want to save your prescription and not read this. To put it mildly, life has been eventful lately and I haven’t been able to keep in touch with most people. I wanted to record for myself what I've been up to, so if I can compound that endeavor by updating a few people on my story, excellent.

Here’s the thing: I don't particularly enjoy long phone conversations. Don't take it personally because it doesn't matter with whom I'm speaking. I don't like the slight delay in transmittance; I don't like that the entire non-verbal element of communication disappears. These are issues that VOIP and bluetooth simply can't settle. The next generation of videochatting portable devices might suit me better. But guess what, this is not Tokyo, nor is this Seoul. For now, if I can cover the overarching picture here, our (shorter) phone conversation can be much more interesting for us both.

So you're left with this: too many paragraphs on a moribund blog. Take it or leave it. Excuse me, you're drooling...no, the right side...got it.

And then there was New York.
In the fall of '05 it became apparent to me that DC was not my ideal city. I liked many things about that city (some great people, a plugged-in/turned-on professional environment, improving social scene), but it boiled down to this: on the ever-paramount front of personal happiness, the cons outweighed the pros and I'd seen other places that endeared themselves to me more. So a relocation was in order. It would take nearly a year, and another position within my company, before I rolled away from DC with my meager possessions and charged northward to New York City for a new adventure.

First of all, what a phenomenal city! To wake up and step into the pulse of that metropolis is an exhilarating feeling, something I'll forever be glad to have experienced as a resident. Take solely the island of Manhattan. What a spectacle to witness the energy and brainpower from around the globe that has descended upon a skinny rock at the mouth of the Hudson River. Block after block after block teems. And I'm not just talking about Wall Street (which doesn't teem after hours, incidentally!), Little Italy/Chinatown, Greenwich Village, and Midtown. I'm talking about the whole damn island. I worked way up near 170th street in an area that isn't even included on most Manhattan maps. This area was alive with swarms of people at all hours, and that's just one example of an oft-ignored part of the City that's bumpin'. The city's alive on the surface and its underbelly is crisscrossed with a hidden world of trains that never sleep. Viewing the skyline from Brooklyn never failed to make my heart beat in appreciation of the ingenuity and vitality that erected those forests of buildings.

[If you love history and have about 15 hours of free time on your hands, I can't express enough how incredible is Ric Burns' PBS documentary "New York: A Documentary Film". Starting with the arrival of the Dutch in the early 17th century, this 8-disk series traces the history of New York City throughout the last 4 centuries (from the arrival of the Dutch until post 9/11). The narrative is engaging and the paintings, photos, and videos visually capture how old and rich is the fabric of that city.]

But for a real taste of New York, hop across either the Hudson or the East River and check out the surrounding areas. To the west you've got northern New Jersey. Up above you've got the Bronx, Westchester and swanky Connecticut. Go east and you're trekking through Queens or Brooklyn, then the NYC satellite communities, then the real Long Island. If Manhattan is the engine, herein is the fuel. If Manhattan is the dish, herein is the spice.

The real ethnic neighborhoods and Bohemian enclaves are in the boroughs. When you want something authentic and unadorned with needless (and expensive) frills, head across one of New York's incredible bridges (arguably, my favorite structures in the City). Such places can be found in Manhattan, but they're not easy to spot (actually, in parts of Brooklyn and Queens--some of which I know fairly well--this same scenario is already transpiring in its nascent stages, but nowhere near the same level). Instead, in Brooklyn and Queens it's pretty common to walk out of a subway and hear most people speaking another language. I remember one adventure-walk I took during my last round of unemployment (disturbingly, not too long ago!) in Brooklyn where I wandered into the Hassidic Jewish neighborhood. I honestly thought I was in a movie as throngs of bearded men with enormous hats briskly crossed streets with hands clasped pensively behind their backs and women clad in garments reminiscent of catholic nuns rushed by escorting their bountiful offspring in strollers. In my neighborhood of Greenpoint Brooklyn you might initially scoff at any claim of diversity because many people are white. But soon, you'll realize that you can't understand a thing anyone's saying because they're all speaking Polish! Oh, and about 4 blocks down is a heavy concentration of Hispanic families and Spanish reigns. This is just one example. In essence, if cultural and ethnic diversity is a driving factor in your decision to move to New York, you are absolutely choosing the right spot. Know, however, that your interests will likely draw you away from Manhattan into the other boroughs (and northern New Jersey).

I lived in two neighborhoods in Manhattan and two neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Everywhere felt very urban. But in Manhattan your beer will cost $7 and fries don't come with that burger. [And beware of the cheapest spots, including a buffet Indian restaurant that sometimes unintentionally adds roaches for extra flavor--I'm not kidding, I saw a worker scoop a roach out of a tub of curry chicken, shrug his shoulders and say, "welcome to New York!"]. In Manhattan, you'll see Hispanic and African American women pushing strollers with pasty white kids inside. Guess what, those women probably don't live there, and if they do, they likely live up in Harlem where prices are creeping up fast and traditional communities are dissolving. Head to NYU where the unshaven, tight-jeaned hipsters relax in Washington Square. But don't ask too many questions because the conversation stops at the Trust Fund.

Everywhere, you feel this incessant rush to be the most hip, secure an apartment deal, make your train, see the new club, and on an on and on. These things can be productive or destructive. The rush leads to things moving at a lightening pace. If you have the right personality and your sh*t’s together, you're plugged in and cruising. But the rush also allows less time for digestion and contemplation, so you start to wonder if your lightening progress is moving in the right direction. You need a break from New York to thrive in New York.

Manhattan is large enough and complex enough to maintain a real sense of ethnic diversity. Beware, however, because even the last bastions of this are disappearing faster than you'd believe. The same apartment my aunt rented a decade ago in the East (Greenwich) Village is now renting at atleast twice that rate if not more. Most of the newcomers are white professionals. Manhattan is being overtaken by over-compensated white kids whose name-brand degrees bought them positions at Goldman Sachs and midtown Hedge Funds. Trust me, I see my own cynicism and don't particularly like it. Many elements of gentrification are positive (not to mention that I know some great, hard-working people with those ‘name-brand’ degrees for whom I have a lot of admiration): dangerous areas transform into safe, clean neighborhoods; more businesses are attracted which generate new jobs; schools improve; these improvements spur improvements in adjacent neighborhoods and the movement spreads. But lets be honest, an overwhelming number of one race from similar socio-economic roots is represented and an overwhelming number of professions are not represented. In my opinion, this is a travesty for the city. The groups that give New York (and any other locale) its flavor are flocking across the rivers into the other boroughs. Manhattan is for the wealthy, period. I think there's more than one way to improve a neighborhood and I can't help but think these are short-run wins instead of long-run wins.

So here's the thing about New York, in my opinion you need atleast one of the following to really be happy there today (in order of decreasing importance): lots and lots of money, a connection for housing, the ability to get away, or family and friends in close proximity.

I had basically none of these things (to a small extent, the last), which eventually made the city unappealing. Although other factors contributed, it came down to one crucial fact: New York is prohibitively expensive for the lifestyle it affords someone on my budget. It's a world-class city that attracts the best and the brightest from across the globe. Its rich history is enchanting. If you consider the boroughs and northern New Jersey, it's gotta be one of the most diverse areas on earth. But in order to live there, people of modest means must move farther and farther from the epicenter. Manhattan itself just feels like too much of an elite museum. I didn't move to Manhattan to grow rich in the financial game (although I did, unsuccessfully, interview for some finance jobs because I thought it'd be interesting to see that world from the inside). What really attracted me was the cosmopolis itself. I wanted culture and cutting-edge creation. I found some of that but it was mostly outside Manhattan. Manhattan is now almost exclusively for high-end (brow?!) culture, but I often find that profoundly less interesting, not to mention profoundly less accessible! I prefer to see the workhorses on the ground floor fighting for their passions instead of those being handed their entitlement. I scratched the surface on the Brooklyn scene and liked some of what I saw. But Brooklyn is still really expensive and it's far enough away from the big, pretty buildings to make me question what I was doing there. I felt like I could really plug into some neighborhoods but never had any hope of plugging into the city itself...and wasn't quite sure if I wanted to anyways.

My aunt lived in Manhattan for a couple decades spanning roughly the mid-70's through the mid-90's. Many of those years were spent as a social worker in the Lower East Side. She sometimes lived in penury but always lived happily. She speaks with unadulterated fondness about the ethnic food, the bazaar of different people, and the creative vibe that dominated. I can't help but think that her New York was quite different from mine. Namely, one could still reasonably expect that such an existence be Manhattan-centric. Today, that is not possible without a flush bank account or a nice connection, which already implies a disruption of the demographics. If you have those things, Manhattan is still an incredible place. But please, know that it’s different today than it was yesterday and, please, don’t rent!

So…..what?
I wasn’t alone in my analysis of New York. K’s likes/dislikes aligned with mine as our adventure together continued. Hers is a saga in and of itself that isn’t mine to share here. Suffice it to say, revelations only come if you’re willing to stick your neck out and test the water. And once they do arrive, it takes a whole new reserve of strength to face the barrage of doubts from others and transfer those schemes into reality. She’s done this in grand-fashion over the last year and I couldn’t be more proud of her.

So we repaired to the nearest pub and took stock of our scenario in the only suitable fashion: over a frosty pint.

For me, the professional consequences were foremost on my mind. New York will always be there and my roots were relatively shallow, so extricating myself was simple on most fronts. However, although I had some real issues with my position at Columbia, the educational opportunities alone made such a position (which was nearly impossible to land, and I only secured after 6 months of persistence) tough to relinquish. Also, I would be dealing with a 4-month blight on my resume and likely heading towards another bout with unemployment. But here’s a crucial bit of self-knowledge I’ve gained in the post-college years: location is absolutely critical for me. There are many jobs and great academic programs I won’t even consider if that involves living in an unappealing location for a significant length of time. My second position at the National Academies in DC was phenomenal in many ways, but I still stepped out onto streets that didn’t embrace my full potential for inspiration. New York is not unappealing in an absolute sense, but it quickly becomes so given insufficient resources.

Life in New York is a battle…but it's not that I'm afraid of a battle. Nothing comes easy…but I'm not asking for an easy road. All I'm asking for is to find a battle worth fighting. And I know this might sound harsh to some dear ears, but I couldn't justify fighting the battle in New York. The spoils of that war were insufficient for the sacrifice. I have too many priorities that couldn't be met by that city (at this time) and I wasn't willing to pay the astronomical price to indulge just a few of my passions. Perhaps I'll reside in New York at another point, but I'll either have lots and lots of money, a connection for housing, the ability to get away, or family and friends in close proximity. Either the first or the second, combined with either the third or the fourth, would be absolute requirements. For now and into the indefinite future, a couple yearly visits will suffice.

Therefore, it was a surprisingly easy decision for K and I to decide it was time to go.

But where?

Which brings me to Chicago, literally.
The answer was simple: Chicago.

Here are the characteristics for my ideal home:
A cosmopolis, first and foremost.
Four distinct seasons.
The juxtaposition of quaint neighborhoods and a thriving, vertical downtown.
A significantly sized and clean body-of-water/river.
Relatively-affordable, interesting, clean, safe, decently-sized housing.
Few rainy days; give me snow over cold rain.
Mind-blowing architecture.
An encompassing network of public transportation.
Incredible food.
History.
An eclectic, thriving, worldly, educated, unpretentious populace.
Great, distinctive, comfortable coffee shops.
Great, distinctive, comfortable pubs.
World class universities.
A promising economy.
Bike friendly and pro-physical fitness atmosphere.
A place where I feel comfortable yet constantly challenges me.
Clean, abundant park space.
Easy access to the outdoors.
Easy access to mountains.
Easy access to the ocean.
Athletic teams.
Affordable, abundant flights to my hometown.
Affordable, abundant flights to everywhere else on earth.

It’s funny because (I don’t think I’m exaggerating here) Chicago is just not on the radar screen of most people on the West Coast. We west coasters relish our society, lifestyle, and the unparalleled natural beauty outside. When most of us think about possible other cities in the US that might satisfy such high (and unique) standards of living we have fairly predictable list of possible choices (Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego…maybe some inland choices like Denver, Austin, Salt Lake City…then the few east coast selections such as Boston, Brooklyn, the Research Triangle, or possibly DC. This might sound preposterous to people from elsewhere, but I really don’t think Chicago is a city that most west coast people consider as livable, even given it’s immense population and popularity as a sports-city and history hub. I think most of us heard the words ‘midwest’ and ran screaming away from the Chicago brochures…especially eschewing the thought of ‘eclectic’ and ‘worldy’ fitting the bill.

[I was actually hesitant to even mention this, but let’s be honest, this thing doesn’t have the circulation of the Washington Post (or the Fort Washington Post)…]

Homies, if you haven’t already realized, think again! I can safely say that Chicago satisfies, to a greater or lesser degree, 22 of the 24 criteria above. And no, Wisconsin doesn’t have the Cascades, Rockies, Sierras, Chugach, or Alaskan Ranges, but it’s downright gorgeous up there and it’s pretty close. Seriously. There’s even a few mounds that people ‘ski’ down! And as for the other missing criteria, parts of Chicago’s north-side waterfront could easily be mistaken for southern cali’s beaches, minus the five-footers. Trees and parks are everywhere, cool neighborhoods abound, downtown is accessible and energetic yet not chaotic, the trains run above ground (something anyone who’s ridden the dark subways of NYC will appreciate immediately), if you enjoy cold/snowy winters the weather is phenomenal. The prices are big-city level, but not outrageously inflated ala NYC and parts of San Fran and Los Angeles. If you have important people that live east or west but don’t travel much, you can’t beat the location and accessibility/price of flights. Furthermore, you’ll see all kinds here. Quite simply, the city kicks complete ass and will likely blow you away. But, shhh, don’t tell anyone. This is our 9.4 million person secret (entire metropolitan area; 2.9 million in the city itself).

On my PDL preferences list, the only other American city that contends with Chicago is San Francisco (Philly would rank highest of the East Coast contenders). But, hey, the location and lifestyle I’d want in San Fran (not extravagance) puts me back in the NYC economics dilemma, not to mention I really like my seasons. There’s a reason Chicago just won the US bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. It’s down to a handful of global contestants (Rio de Janeiro, Madrid, Prague, and Tokyo look like the real competition) and I’m guessing Chicago is at the top of that list.

After visiting Chi-town many times in the last couple years, I’d totally fallen for it. After realizing this, I could never think of New York as anything more than a stop along the way to either here or San Fran. For the reasons above, Chicago was the obvious first choice.

Who knows how long I’ll be here but I can tell you this: my quasi-wandering over the previous 3 years has been a deliberate effort to educate myself on other parts of the country and determine where I’d most like to settle for a few years and build something. Chicago is very likely the place where I sacrifice the least and gain the most. The international phase of my life will probably have to wait for another degree or some unexpected professional opportunity. Whether this involves consistent traveling or even living abroad for awhile, it will come, I promise. You see, my life is intended as one ever-improving adventure and I think Chicago is where I will mold that reality in the near-future. In Brooklyn, I finally gained a small taste of stability (and the opportunities for growth that stability affords) and I decided I was too impatient to wait for the next step along the way. I knew what I wanted, I knew it would benefit me immensely in the long run, so sacrifices and seeming-insanity were small prices to pay in the short run!

So, yes, I now live in Chicago.

Can you spell ‘career’ for me, please?
Let’s return to the near-term sacrifices. Namely, I now find myself again faced with the dilemma of unemployment. This has been a recurring theme of my post-college experience. I’ve moved numerous times and tried a number of jobs. Chicago is just the latest iteration of this script. You have to be willing to pay the consequences to undertake the path I’ve taken. It’s definitely not for everyone. In fact, I’m not sure I’d recommend it to many people. That’s not a statement of superiority/inferiority. It’s simply a concession that I needed to learn lessons in this manner and others may not need to do so. Because of my mobile lifestyle, I’ve surely sacrificed the consideration of many cool employers who don’t like my unintelligible resume. I also haven’t focused on further schooling which bumps that back a few years. Amen.

For years I’ve been struggling with finding direction. My profession has taken a backseat to geographical exploration, friendships and relationships, and generally establishing a personal philosophy. Without that foundation, I’d be building something structurally unsound (feel free to vomit at this point). My ultimate vision was never compromised, but this (professionally speaking) side stuff had to come first.

So now I’m here with some time on my hands, and I’m wondering what the hell am I doing with myself?! I tore through Po Bronson’s book that’s been sitting on my shelf since Portland, I took online character/skills/aptitude tests, I consulted family, I bought a career-counseling book. All of this has been helpful to expand my vision, but it’s also a bit overwhelming and convinces me that there’s no easy answer. My interests are varied and complex and there’s lots of other people like me with voracious appetites. Maybe I’ll see a Career Counselor but a few hundred bucks seems like a lot to an unemployed dude (exercise, find the logical flaws in Phil’s argument).

The underlying staples of my universe are rationality, objective analysis, creativity, good-conscience-productivity and humor. But these characteristics can fit into so many professional outlets. It’s both a confusing and exciting experience to simultaneously—and quite seriously—consider each of the following paths/careers within a five-day span: physics PhD, biophysics PhD, financial analyst, space lawyer, intellectual property lawyer, MBA, international relations, engineering PhD, Biomedical Engineering PhD, Computer Science PhD, journalist, novelist, actuary, restaurateur, teacher, psychiatrist/psychologist, architect, graphic designer.

Has anyone else gone through this career exploration phase? Probably most, to some degree. By no means have I reached any life-altering decisions, but it has been a productive period of introspection.

Phil, wake up to the rest of the globe!
Unexpectedly, what’s helped me most recently is picking up another book I’ve been meaning to read; this one having nothing to do with career exploration.

Quite simply, please listen to this: if you have not read Thomas Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty First Century” (2005), pick this book up soon.

For anyone who even takes a few minutes to glance at the news headlines each day, the content is nothing unexpected: India, China, and Eastern Europe are rising and the global playing field is being leveled. The genetic lottery of being born middle-class (or better) in the US will soon not prove as meaningful. We all know this, kind of.

What this book does, however, is detail the incredible extent to which this has already happened (not to mention that this book considers the world as it was way back in late 2004 and things have been changing at light-speed since), the reasons it has happened, and the long-term consequences for Americans. It’s just a nice summary of lots of important stuff and I think any American entering the workforce or considering more schooling should read it.

This book is phenomenal because it does two things. First of all, it will alarm you and scare you. Secondly, it will inspire you. Friedman isn’t issuing a call to nationalism. Instead, he’s telling America that we need to work our asses off to remain global leaders (even global players) in most industries. He focuses a lot on science and engineering because they traditionally have driven markets and will do so to an even greater extent in the future. But really, it’s the same for any professional endeavor (accounting, law, marketing, healthcare, etc.). He thinks, and I agree, that everyone benefits from a flattening world, including Americans, but we’re just going to have to work harder to really benefit. There’s going to be some uncomfortable times during the transition for people of all ranks and we’ll need to iron out political policies that allow for the much-needed transition but also cushion those being adversely affected and get them back in the new ballgame.

For individuals, it’s going to get more competitive because there’s more people being educated around the world and most of them have greater appetites than you and I. Most of them will accept less for their work. What that means is that we need to actually take advantage of our world-leading education system and continue to improve ourselves. This doesn’t mean you have to go get an engineering PhD (although we do need those). It means that instead of killing your mind with laziness, go learn something that challenges you and gives you the tools to create something novel or contribute something impressive. It might not even be a traditional degree, but instead a combination of skills that are unique (aka, a cartoonist who understands basic computer programming and speaks Polish). That sort of thing.

So where this leaves me now is convinced of a couple things. First of all, the world is becoming progressively more tech-driven and I don’t want to drown in this. I want to participate. It has re-inspired my natural attraction towards science and instilled the pursuit with more meaning. I haven’t been able to focus on any field for graduate studies because anything outside of science leaves a huge part of me unfulfilled, yet anything in science takes a significant amount of dedication and will shield me from other things I’m interested in for awhile. But now, I’m finally at a point where I can look longer-term and understand that in order to participate in this world in a meaningful way, you must receive more specialized training. Once you have that, then you can spread your creative wings and attempt to combine all your interests.

Secondly, I don’t have to have the grand-scheme picture entirely figured out right now. My uber-career might be in an area not even envisioned right now because things are moving so fast! Instead, I just need to learn something and apply myself. I know a PhD physicist who’s working in financial analysis in Manhattan right now. He has no regrets about lost time and he loves what he’s doing. He also loves what he studied. The key was that he took it to another level. For him, that meant getting a PhD. What he’ll have in common with someone else doing something completely different is just that they both applied their minds and their energy. Maybe they both read Friedman’s book, or maybe they were his case-studies for success!

So I had a second interview at U of C today working in research that coordinates a medical unit with engineers, chemists, and physicists. That sort of cross-disciplinary work is the wave of the future and I love it both philosophically and for the way it promises to benefit humankind. It’s a microcosm off the integration happening globally. Again, that’s something I don’t want to fear, but something I want to partake in. So whereas awhile ago I might have dwelt on being stuck in a lab and missing other opportunities, now it seems an amazing opportunity for me to improve my knowledge of many branches of science, enhance my tech skills, apply myself creatively, and work towards some yet-undefined ultimate expression of myself. Plus, there’s always time after work for the other interests.

So the U of C thing would be phenomenal and hopefully it'll happen. But the workforce is cutthroat right now, so maybe I’ll be working for a staffing agency next week answering the phone for some VP as I make my appointment with the career counselor to formulate Plan B. Hopefully not, but we’ll see.

And finally, there’s this bloggy thing.
Some periods are for me and only for me. I'm actually quite careful with what I'll spill on a blog. With some topics, I have no problem communicating through this medium with candor and openness. The nauseating length of this post offers proof. Sometimes, however, instead of interpreting the world on these pages I need to have the liberty to extricate myself and process more privately.

2006 was not for this medium. Many reasons contributed, which I won’t discuss here. I don’t foresee disappearing like that again anytime soon. Sorry to all my loyal fan (singular). I’m still deciding where I want to take this thing. Maybe less topical and more creative stuff at times. Probably not daily posts, but atleast weekly. We’ll see.

Please, stay tuned.

So many dead

The violence in Iraq baffles the imagination. Another 90 + killed in mosques. Another 6 + killed in hotels. Atleast 4 more people obliterated their bodies in the name of religion and politics and hate and desperation. No one needs another tirade launched about the war’s legitimacy and it’s execution, so let me keep this brief. Suffice it to say, the Hussein regime and it’s brutal repression needed to go, but this was not the way to do it. The hubris, ideological distortion, and selfish motives that led our current administration into this quagmire have destroyed so many lives unnecessarily and alienated us for generations from so many people it makes you nauseous to consider. The soldiers in Iraq are doing incredible things by building the infrastructure for modern development, opening schools, and giving oppressed people a ballot. But those actions are overshadowed by the instability that’s a direct offshoot of our essentially unilateral approach. It’s cynical and ridiculous to characterize the Bush administration as purely evil. Those who do see the world in black and white, and that’s bullshit. Aside from the oil reserves and callous geopolitical strategizing, those who masterminded and directed this campaign also considered 100’s of thousands killed or maimed by chemical warfare and wanton slaughter at the hands of the Hussein regime. But moral indignation doesn’t justify brash, irresponsible retaliation that, in many ways, compounds the misery. We should have the whole goddamn world playing a part in this enterprise and ensuring that instead of strapping nails and wire to their chests, those people reap the benefits of democracy and freedom. This never was a job for such a limited military contingent, and maybe not a military contingent at all. Regardless of how positive the ultimate outcome-and I truly hope stability and democracy prevail-those who calculated this assault and reconstruction have erred on an unforgivable scale and can now only hope to save face, and a few innocent, war-torn lives.

ganGREnous test issued vital medicine

First of all, if you’re just tuning back in, go check out my photos from Europe (but don’t use the “view as slideshow” option…make me feel like you care what I have to say and read my captions under the photos).

Now to the point: a year from this month, in October 2006, the Graduate Record Exam (GRE)-that purported barometer of how students will perform in graduate school-will undergo a major facelift. According to the Times' interview with the executive director of the GRE program,

On the new exams, the verbal reasoning section will consist of two 40-minute sections rather than one 30-minute section, and will place less emphasis on vocabulary and more on higher cognitive skills...The quantitative reasoning section will grow from one 45-minute section to two 40-minute sections, with fewer geometry questions and more on interpreting tables and graphs. And the analytical writing measure, which had a 45-minute essay and a 30-minute essay, will now have two 30-minute essays.

I openly embrace these changes. Although this remark will surely inspire many grumbles, I think the test needs to be longer. When you’re only given 30 minutes to prove your adeptness in verbal reasoning and 45 in quantitative pursuits, it seems a trip or a slip could really damage your score. By increasing the number of questions, the severity of such slips diminishes and a greater understanding of the student’s abilities surfaces.

I can personally attest to this because I took the GRE at the end of September when a virtual avalanche of both personal and professional pressures amounted. After running from work to the testing center, I mistakenly thought myself at peace and prepared to test. Near the end of the initial writing section, and especially in the following quantitative part, the pressures I’d warded off for a few minutes came barreling back. A crippling anxiety attack ensued that literally paralyzed me mentally. I only bring it up here because I find it pertinent to my argument. The time constriction and tiny opportunity to prove my abilities intensified the pressures once they surfaced and magnified what should have been a brief period of anxiety into something devastating; there was no time to recover. The new GRE formula promises that such crises could be averted by promising students ample opportunity to amend a 5-minute mental lapse. By no means do I consider myself alone in facing these exterior burdens when testing; therefore, I think many others would support an extension of the GRE’s breadth, as well. Although the GRE by no means constitutes the only, or even the most important criteria (and, it shouldn’t) upon which graduate schools will measure a student, it nevertheless does bear some importance. Therefore, students should have adequate opportunity to demonstrate their abilities [ps. I took the test the following week after a breath of fresh air and the differences between the two testing sessions was night and day-if this happens to anyone else inane enough to schedule under such circumstances, don’t worry, just take it again].

Aside from the length, the nature of the questions needs attention. I transformed into a lab rat and took ETS's experimental verbal section after concluding my test and found the questions much more meaningful. As mentioned above, the present questions emphasize vocabulary WAY too much and often preclude test-takers from utilizing enough critical thinking to effectively reason towards a solution if they don't know the definition of some esoteric word. This should be about thinking and comprehending, not memorizing vocabulary. Don't get me wrong, I love words and often find more interesting words capable of conveying more interesting thoughts. But that's certainly not always true and a big words don't necessarily make you smart. ETS way overexaggerates their import. The newer questions address that point effectively, in my opinion.

Another welcome change is ETS’s decision to dispose of “computer adaptive” testing. In essence, if you answer a question correctly, the computer spits out a more difficult question the next time. If you answer incorrectly, the computer gives an ‘easier’ follow-up question. According to ETS’s philosophy, the computer eventually narrows in on your skill in a particular subject through this trial and error approach.

This presents a number of problems, however. First of all, you could easily find yourself caught in a maelstrom of analysis with the appearance of each subsequent question as you tried to gauge whether it seemed more difficult than the previous question. Considering the inherent pressure already weighing on test takers, this additional psychological burden could easily distract beyond acceptable limits, further compromising the validity of the final score. Furthermore, it removes any nagging arbitrariness in determining the ‘difficulty’ of a particular question. I mean, maybe you got the preceding question wrong and, hence, received an ‘easier’ follow-up question, but who decides whether that follow-up question is really any easier after all? I mean, if your percentage reflects how you tested compared to everyone else, shouldn’t you all answer the same questions?

Finally, out of roughly 30 questions in a section, the initial 10 weigh much heavier in determining your final score because the following 20 questions only serve to refine an already grossly defined score. In other words, mess up on a couple questions early, and your score might not reflect your true abilities. So, for all these reasons, good riddance “computer adaptive” testing.

I also like that “every question on the new exams will be used only once, and the test will start at different times in different time zones, so students who have finished cannot pass on questions to those in different zones.” It was glaringly obvious that if you were fanatical about raising your scores ten or twenty points (maybe even more), you could easily drill friends or find a website chalked full of probable questions.

In long-awaited conclusion, if they’re going to insist on an entrance exam, then why not make it more meaningful. I fully support the revisions planned by ETS to broaden the scope of the GRE and revise the nature of the material.

Taxis, the bane joy of my existence

A human being can only endure undue punishment for so long before simmering, tension-laden vats of justice-seeking adrenaline boil over in a torrent of revolutionary outcry. Taxis have recently elicited such violent outbursts from yours-truly as I’ve finally reached the point where I cannot passively accept their lawless behavior.

Kristy and I decided to grab a cheap lunch on Saturday for Restaurant Week in DC. Long story short, we were nine blocks away and needed to get there pronto. No buses in sight, I sacrificed my usually unwavering pledge to only take taxis if my life depended on it (or, if it’s six in the morning) and caved to the pressure. We hopped in and drove a block before realizing we only had eight dollars cash between the two of us. According to our driver, whom we immediately alerted to this predicament, the fare for this ride cost exactly $10.10 for two people. I repeat we picked the cab up ½ block inside zone 1 and rode about 8 blocks into zone 2a, and our driver had the audacity to charge us $10.10. First of all, it was questionable whether he should charge the fare for two zones to begin with considering we were only ½ block away from the dividing line and we were riding a grand total of 9 blocks. Secondly, we notified him of our innocent mistake almost immediately upon entering the taxi. Finally, he wouldn’t stop but, instead, insisted upon releasing every verbal dagger in his impressive arsenal at a 80 decibals from a distance of approximately 2 ½ feet while he tore away at breakneck speed, endangering himself, his passengers, any nearby pedestrians and the general air quality in DC. I was so impressed with his relentless cathartic vituperative that I decided to partake and by the end we were firing a barrage of ‘spirited dialogue’ at each other. Good times.

All this transpired in the immediate wake of another battle in Manhattan the previous week. Regarding that debacle, I’ll say this: when you and a cabbie decide upon a set fare, the deal is done. Just like any other business transaction, once you complete that verbal contract, there’s no reneging on your obligation. The passenger and the driver are both obligated to honor their end of the bargain. Therefore, when our driver tried to renegotiate a set fare from the East Village across the Hudson to Jersey City upon discovering delays in the Holland Tunnel, I was having none of it. You’re right, every DJ in NYC is blabbing away about the Holland Tunnel delays, that’s exactly why you should have known before you agreed to our fare. Blame yourself for not staying updated on the pertinent information concerning your job. Don’t unleash a tirade on the passengers in the backseat because they won’t remunerate your mistake. He and I were getting along famously by the end of our trip…when he sped around the deserted streets of Jersey City at 6:30 am and eventually dropped us off 2 miles away from home sweet home. We send postcards now.

I understand that cab drivers in DC and NYC, and other cities for that matter, work long, arduous hours patrolling the streets, shuttling around a fair number of drunken, overpaid, arrogant bastards that neglect the humanity of whomever steers the wheel and punches the gas. Oftentimes, putting up with the humiliating episodes inherent in the life of a cabbie offers one of the few opportunities for immigrants to make a respectable wage and put their kids through school. I have every intention to respect them as people and compensate them for the service they provide.

However, at some point generosity must cease and practicality must begin. I’m subsisting on a relatively meager non-profit salary in a city characterized by ridiculously overpriced rents. Just as I don’t plan on dismissing them as some delinquent stereotype, I don’t like being viewed as a trust-fund Georgetown brat or Wall Street sycophant who can throw around 20’s like they’re coasters at the martini club. I need to watch my expenditures so I don’t drown and I’m definitely not taking my last breath inside an overpriced taxi.

The NYC episode doesn’t reflect my overall opinion of their taxi system since meters normally determine the fare. That’s a statement regarding fulfilling your end of a pledge. That’s it. Do your research in advance and don’t blame me for not knowing what you already should. Period.

The zone system in DC, however, benefits nobody except the cabdrivers and all too often results in shouting matches, slammed doors and screeching tires. The purportedly ‘set’ fares between zones almost never compute properly. I know because I’ve studied that tattered zone-sheet numerous times…and my roommate pulled an epic stunt by permanently ‘borrowing’ one of those laminated maps and plastering it on our living room wall. We quiz each other before work in the morning. Okay, that’s not true.

We need more accountability and fewer strained vocal chords in DC. The solution is simple: dump the Zone System and fire up the meters. I, for one, would be much more willing to catch an occasional cab and the collective blood pressure of the district might relax to something only slightly threatening.

rant, rant...rave, rave

I have issues with this article in the 'Style' section of the Post today. In a nutshell the article praises shade as the glorious alternative to summer's blistering sun. Stylistically, it weaves its message in a semi-poetical, semi-philosophical, semi-I'm-writing-an-essay-for-my-CreativeWriting101-class sort of way. All that is well and good.

Two things:

1)They use the following quote:

"Shade is a big-time thing these days," says Michael Jones, a federal government
worker, mopping sweat from his brow in Lafayette Park yesterday afternoon. He
watches a game of blitz chess at one of the concrete tables set up around the
park's walkways, standing about three feet out of the sunlight. "There are days,
over in Dupont, where we'll actually pay one of the homeless guys to move from a
chess table in the shade."

Are you F'ing kidding me! First of all, nobody should ever think that, let alone say it. Secondly, the Post printed it! If you can convince me the editor/author was making a subtle point about the arrogant demeanor of that man, and maybe by extension the typical DC professional in relation to 'homeless guys', perhaps i'd support it. But reading through the rest of the article doesn't leave that sort of impression. Instead, I think they printed it simply to try and relay the degree of sweltering summer heat in DC. It's not right to print that line in this context. It focuses on him saying 'it's hot' and ignores the fact that he's an ignorant, arrogant bastard. I don't want his quote representing me or anybody else melting in our swamp.

2)They make it sound like the shade actually does offer respite from the heat! That's the worst part of summer here: There is no escaping the heat. You can run for shade all you want, it's not going to do much. The humid heat literally swallows and suffocates you. I went running at 11 PM last night, after a thunderstorm came and supposedly booted out the evil heat spell we've been slowly rotting under. Granted it was cooler. Ten minutes into my run, however, i was dripping in sweat and overheating like a furnace. You just can't get away from it, ever. I strongly recommend that anyone who doesn't have towering political ambitions-or a return flight-avoid DC like the plague during summer months...even N. Virginia offers a pleasant escape.

The (wo)man's bringin' me down

I’m that guy. The one that’s too young. The one with the slightly disheveled, slightly longer-than-necessary hair. The one with the tattered backpack, complete (NOT 'replete' as one of my adoring fans has pointed out in the COMMENT section below) with broken zipper. The one jamming the obscenely ubiquitous white ipod headphones that scream, “you’re not a fifty year old scientist!” Add it up and what do you get: a victim of the National Academies security guard profiling. That’s right.

There’s this one harridan with eagle eyes, that perches in her eagle’s nest, sharpening her eagle’s talons…just waiting to sink those claws into my shoulder blades so she can carry my dangling body off and throw me to her horde of bloodthirsty eagle children, who will process my flesh like deli turkey and feast upon my innards as I writhe in the dying throes of agony.

It’s a lot like that, I’m not kidding.

Every time I spot that lady I start to lose my cool. My breathing comes in choked fits while I ponder the forbidding consequences of saying the wrong thing or looking the wrong way. Even the mechanics of walking elude me at this critical moment as I stumble over my toe, catching myself in an all-too-obvious attempt to conceal my anxiety.

“Excuse me, sir. Sir? Excuse me, Sir! Can I see your identification please?” I muster up my courage, clench my fists, and turn on my heels to face her. There she is. Again. The same lady that raked me over hot coals last week.

I show her my identification. The similarities between the photo and my face are striking and undeniable. Still, she scrutinizes both with those piercing eyes, intently searching for an awkward reflection of light, a bent corner.

She silently hands it back to me…and I prepare for the admonishment.

Just as the sun rises each day, the admonishment follows: “Sir, you are aware that Academy policy requires you wear your identification around your neck for public view. You are aware of that, right?”

Huh, that’s fascinating. Thanks for the Academies’ civics lessons you evil Amazon…Let’s talk about four score and seven…meaning, of course, the 87 people that just walked through the door in front of me, none of whom were adorned with a visible badge. Let’s talk about you and me and those bronze-cast maize plants settling this thing right here, right now! I scream at her in my imaginary snake tongue.

“Sorry about that, I forgot my badgeholder upstairs,” is the tail-stuck-between-legs answer that ekes its silly way out of my mouth.

Now I think back to all those news stories we read about Americans of Middle Eastern descent being harassed unnecessarily in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks. I think about the African Americans on DC streets who often aren’t even graced with eye contact because it’s automatically assumed they’re panhandling. I think about the girls in high school counselors' offices being subtly, or not so subtly, directed towards their more "natural" path in the humanities.

Then I think to myself, “Profiling blows.”