Thursday, October 18, 2007

YOUR VIRTUAL EYES AND EARS: Prospecting for NSF ITEST GRANT & STEM CENTER Capacity Building Assets

Detroit skyline

2007 Northern / Midwest Area Conference

October 18–20, 2007

Detroit session browser and personal scheduler »

Join us in "the Motor City" for NSTA's first fall conference. Detroit is a city of rhythms, from the assembly line to the best of Motown, jazz, and blues. Our conference theme, "Engineering a Brighter Future," says it all—professional development at its best.

The conference headquarters hotel is the Detroit Marriott at the Renaissance Center. Conference registration and sessions will be at Cobo Center, as will the exhibits, the NSTA Science Store, and the NSTA Showcase. Short courses and some meetings and social events will be held at the Marriott.

The conference will begin with concurrent sessions on Thursday, October 18, at 8:00 AM. The conference will end on Saturday, October 20, at 12 Noon with the closing of the exhibits.

Please review the days events and exhibits and "comment" on anything you believe should be explored.

EXAMPLES:

Friday, October 19 9:30 AM–12:00 PM

Planning, Designing, and Constructing a New High School Science Facility: A Hands-On Practicum
COBO Center, W1-55

Join the NSTA Team on Planning School Science Facilities for an action-packed two-hour session on how to plan and design your new science facilities and follow a newly constructed high school science building from the initial planning stages through construction and occupancy. Learn how the needs of the science department were translated into bricks and mortar over a two-year period. The authors of the new NSTA Guide to Planning School Science Facilities (August 2007) will guide you through the

Presenter(s): James T. Biehle (Inside/Out Architecture: Kirkwood, MO); Sandra West (Texas State University: San Marcos, TX); Juliana Texley (Palm Beach Community College: Boca Raton, FL); LaMoine L. Motz (Oakland Schools: Waterford, MI)

FORMAT: Workshop
SUBJECT: General Science
GRADE LEVEL: Supervision/Administration


Friday, October 19 9:30–10:30 AM

Students Do It…Will You? (Using Instructional Technology)
COBO Center, M2-30

Instructional technology has poked its nose into schools throughout the decades, often with teacher trepidations and suspicions. This has been the same since “ancient” times when my algebra teacher introduced my class to the abacus and my chemistry teacher introduced us to the slide rule. The focus of instructional technology is to provide tools for educators to use in a variety of classroom environments in order to reach a wider student audience. Through computer applications, authentic data retrieval, and scientific laboratory investigations, science teachers have great opportunities to address learners of all modalities through a variety of approaches, a natural means of differentiated instruction.

Presenter(s): Barry Fried, Principal, John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Bio: Barry Fried’s enthusiasm for science education started more than 25 years ago. Now principal of John Dewey High School, Barry emphasizes the advancement of science and technology education for all student populations. An SSEP (Solar System Educators Program) teacher trainer for the New Horizons mission, Barry presents workshops for teachers, students, and community events. Barry has been a major force in collaborating with other educators in working with NASA’s Distance Learning Network and schools across the country in engineering and technology projects as well as cultural exchange programs. This venture has given students the chance to engage in technologies to bridge cultural and societal gaps that exist among high school students from diverse backgrounds and academic levels.

FORMAT: Featured Speaker
SUBJECT: General Science
GRADE LEVEL: General
CONFERENCE STRAND: Technology


Friday, October 19 9:30–10:30 AM

Think Internationally: NSF Support for Worldwide Education Collaboration
COBO Center, D2-09/10

To develop globally engaged scientists, the National Science Foundation is creating collaboration opportunities with classrooms around the world. Come learn about these opportunities and share your ideas.

Presenter(s): Ruth McDonald (National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA)

FORMAT: Presentation
SUBJECT: General Science
GRADE LEVEL: Elementary-High School

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

URGENCY, Convening Power, K-12 Education!

Ann Arbor conference focuses on economic transformation

Posted on 10/15/2007 10:33:47 AM

More than 200 people are taking part in a two-day conference in Ann Arbor to discuss how Michigan’s public universities can be leveraged to improve the state’s economy and drive global competitiveness.

University of Michigan Vice President for Research Stephen Forrest told attendees the conference is meant to “challenge us to think hard about how to move faster toward economic diversification.”

Forrest says the University Research Corridor, linking the University of Michigan, Michigan State, and Wayne State, needs to focus on Michigan’s strengths, which he identified as Advanced Manufacturing, Health Sciences, Energy, and IT. To do so, he says, will require building stronger relationships with industry, in what UM President Mary Sue Coleman has called “partner or perish.”

Forrest says Michigan’s universities have traditionally been conservative, but the changing times require more comfort with intellectual risk-taking and more efforts on campus to encourage entrepreneurial activity from faculty and students.

He also says there is a critical need for funding to support what he called the “critical gap” between the formulation of an idea and validating it’s marketability.

Forrest’s views were echoed on video by Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, who serves on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Augustine says three times as much money is spent on litigation as on research, with the result that the U.S. has now fallen from first to seventh in its ability to take advantage of new developments in IT.
While the federal America Competes Act was passed to help address those shortcomings, Augustine says it’s really up to state and local officials to help companies adapt so they can be more competitive in the worldwide marketplace.

Dingell to conference-goers: educate your lawmakers

Democratic Congressman John Dingell told a conference in Ann Arbor that they have a critical role to play addressing the issues facing Michigan’s economy, but their role is not well understood by many lawmakers in Lansing. Dingell told the “Role of Engaged Universities in Economic Transformation” conference that procuring adequate funding for basic research and technology means convincing Lansing that providing funds for Michigan’s public universities is, in his words, “not expenditures, but investments.”

According to Dingell, some lawmakers don’t understand the role universities play in developing new products for the marketplace and spinning off new businesses and new jobs for the economy. He says research work at universities has also been hampered by philosophy, citing religious points of view that have imposed restrictions on stem cell research at the University of Michigan.

Pointing to Route 128 in Massachusetts, Dingell says the climate was right for an explosion of growth in IT industries. He challenged the University Research Corridor to lead a similar effort in Michigan. “You have the ability to create that climate,” Dingell said, saying government is looking for the best programs and support from the private sector to help build American competitiveness against the larger world.

But he also warned them that getting a program passed, like the federal America Competes Act, isn’t enough. The program, approved overwhelmingly by Congress this summer, has not yet been funded. Dingell says a key is to convince lawmakers, both in Lansing and in Washington, that the future of the Michigan and U.S. economies is based on technology and innovation.

Dingell says while “lean and mean” is the prevailing point of view in Lansing, he doesn’t think that view serves public universities well. He says the universities, and the URC, need to step up and show that they can lead Michigan out of the current mood of doom and gloom, and provide the will to address the economic issues facing the state.

Speaker Urges Stronger University-Business Partnerships

Charles Vest is clear.

"The mission of a public university is to create opportunities," he says.

And he told a conference in Ann Arbor the universities must become serious partners with government and industry to fuel research, transfer knowledge, and help create new businesses.

Vest is the President of the National Academy of Engineering and President Emeritus of M.I.T. and keynoted the “Role of Engaged Universities in Economic Transformation” conference in Ann Arbor, which continues Tuesday.

Vest says in the 20th Century, technology was focused on physics, electronics, high speed communication and high speed transportation. He sees the 21th Century emphasizing biology, energy, environmental, health and information issues.

One frontier, he says, is “microscopic,” where biotech, nanotech and IT are seeing a merger of science and engineering and an emphasis on smaller, faster, and more complex.

The other frontier, says Vest, is “macrosopic,” with an emphasis on worldwide issues like energy, water, sustainable resources, and health care. Here, the emphasis is on larger and more complex and science must work hand-in-hand with the social sciences and the humanities to develop bio-based materials, biofuels, and personalized predictive medicine.

An avowed supporter of an “open source” approach, Vest called for the creation of “Knowledge Integration Communities”, where people from government and the entrepreneurial community are engaged in the early stages of university research. He says such groups can help develop new technologies for market more quickly.

While he says most new jobs will come from small and medium-sized companies, Vest also encouraged a limited number of strategic alliances between university researchers and large companies, citing M.I.T.’s alliance with DuPont in biological research. He says trust and communications are keys to making such partnerships both productive and rewarding.

Vest told the conference that public universities play an important role providing what he called “convening power” – a place where people can come together to talk through issues and network with each other. He identified a second role as knowledge transfer, by producing graduates and sharing faculty. He also says public universities have the potential – largely unexplored – to elevate the quality of K-12 education in the community.

Public school education is a key concern for Vest, who said only 15% of high school graduates in the U.S. are prepared to pursues science and engineering degrees at the university level. He says more teachers are needed in the classroom who have math, science and technical degrees and who can inspire the next generation of students to pursue a career in technology.

Vest is also concerned about the state of connectivity in the U.S. He says the country is falling behind when it comes to broadband access, and needs to invest an additional $10 billion dollars a year to improve basic infrastructure if companies are to operate effectively in a global economy.

Elsewhere Monday, the three universities announced:

-- that the former Traverwood offices and laboratories of Pfizer Inc. have been converted into a wet lab incubator that is already filling up, and that MSU has similar plans for a former Pfizer facility in Holland. Also, Ann Arbor Spark is establishing two additional office incubators in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and is working with 31 startup businesses that have or plan to move into one of their three business accelerators.

-- That UM and Wayne State would join forces to form STIET (Socio-Technical Infrastructure for Electronic Transactions), a multi-disciplinary research-education program involving corporations like Google, Yahoo and IBM to train the PhDs who will transform the Internet into one that is speedier, more secure and spam-free. Simultaneously, they are developing new technology to make it easier for the best and brightest minds to collaborate, creating virtual classrooms and laboratories that enable faculty and students to share classes and laboratory assets seamlessly. Key to the effort is Michigan LambdaRail, an ultra high speed fiber optic network developed by the universities.

-- That all three universities are working to greatly expand research related to a highly promising industry: alternative energy. MSU this summer received a $50 million grant to help establish the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center and this fall opened a $10 million alternative energy research center. Meanwhile, Wayne State has established the National Biofuel Energy Lab and lured NextEnergy to its TechTown development while U-M has established the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, part of a $35 million per year investment in energy research.

Building upon a promise to increase partnerships, the URC has recently announced a number of outreach efforts across the state including:

--Working with 20 other Michigan colleges and universities to establish the Michigan Higher Education Recruitment Consortium to attract and retain talent in the state

--Partnering with community hospitals in the landmark National Children's Study.

--Establishing offices for UM and MSU Detroit-based research and outreach efforts. Their locations, close to the Wayne State campus, further aid the ability to collaborate.

The presidents Monday also released the first annual report on the progress of the URC. A pdf version of the report is available at: http://www.urcmich.org/commentary/2007AnnualReport.pdf

For more on the University Research Corridor and other URC initiatives, visit: www.urcmich.org



Who should shake state out of rut?


October 16, 2007

BY TOM WALSH

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

Michigan has no excuse for not being a thriving leader in the knowledge-based, environmentally conscious global economy of the future.

We have fresh water and lots of other great natural assets.

We have a rich history of innovation and entrepreneurship, from automotive pioneer Henry Ford to pizza peddlers Tom Monaghan and Mike Ilitch.

We have a wealth of engineering talent and some of the top research universities in the world.

But we're lazy. Complacent. We have a sense of entitlement and no sense of urgency.

Watching the levees break

Those were but a few of the words and phrases used to explain Michigan's current sad state of economic affairs Monday during the first day of a 2-day conference in Ann Arbor entitled "The Role of Engaged Universities in Economic Development," sponsored by the University Research Corridor alliance of University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Wayne State University.

"Our" Hurricane "Katrina has been out on the horizon for a generation, and we just watched it come," said Rick Snyder, CEO of venture capital firm Ardesta in Ann Arbor, and former president of computer maker Gateway Inc.

Of five things necessary to propel a local economy for takeoff, Snyder said, Michigan is well positioned in technology and has a decent infrastructure. But in the three key areas of capital, talent and culture, "We're flashing red for crisis. We must make major improvements."

The state lacks a well developed venture capital network to seed and nourish new business formation and growth, and even the state's major institutions invest much of their money out of state, Snyder said. And many graduates of Michigan universities leave the state after college.

Sense of entitlement

Culture, Snyder said, "is our biggest problem." Michigan's tremendous industrial success through much of the 20th Century left many of its people with a sense of complacency and entitlement, an assumption that good jobs and wealth always would be available. And even though the impact of automation and global competition has been evident for several decades now, Michigan's response has been tepid, he said.

Mark Murray, president and CEO of Meijer Inc., the Grand Rapids-based retail chain, echoed Snyder's assessment.

"I don't sense the state of urgency that's needed for Michigan to recover as well as it should," said Murray, a former state treasurer and budget director under former Gov. John Engler.

Snyder said the state's political leaders, as is clear from the recent budget battle and tax hikes, have shown virtually no leadership to help pull Michigan out of its no-growth economic stagnation of the past seven years.

Therefore, Snyder said, it's important that the state's major universities show economic leadership by boosting their community involvement.

Derrick Kuzak, group vice president of global product development for Ford Motor Co., made a similar point on a national scale, suggesting that academia join with the automotive industry to push for a rational U.S. energy policy, since the politicians in Washington, D.C., have failed to do so.

"The auto industry will make fundamental changes to reduce its carbon footprint. It's a social responsibility and a business imperative," he said, but it would be much better to have scientists armed with data making key decisions rather than politicians acting on whims.

Filling the leadership void

Are Michigan's major universities ready to step up to a more activist role in fostering economic growth, including a more direct role in local and national politics?

It's not something that comes naturally.

The University of Michigan has long existed as an intellectual outpost, in many ways a world apart from the hurly-burly of industrial Detroit, although Ann Arbor and downtown Detroit are virtually the same distance along I-94 from Metro Airport.

And MSU, WSU and all the other state universities depend in part on the largesse of government for financing. Can they afford to take bold, sometimes controversial positions on issues in those many areas where business and economics meet public policy?

If not our big prestigious universities, who will step forward to lead Michigan's complacent people and hapless politicians out of the economic wilderness?

Contact TOM WALSH at 313-223-4430 or twalsh@freepress.com.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Maxed Out in Chicago!

TechTour Day Two: WiMax World touts the future of long-distance broadband

Posted on 9/26/2007 4:52:50 PM


Thousands of believers in the future of WiMax gathered at Chicago's McCormick Place Wednesday morning for the official opening of the WiMax World 2007 conference.

Conference founder Elliott Weinmann, president of Trendsmedia, the events division of Yankee Group Research, conference sponsors, said WiMax World is the fastest growing telecom show in the world. He joked that the first WiMax World four years ago attracted "about seven people," but Tuesday morning the legendary Arie Crown Theatre in McCormick Place was packed.

Berge Ayvazian, chief strategy officer at Yankee Group, and Phil Marshall, vice president of enabling technologies at Yankee Group, presented a "state of the WiMax" address.

The two men said there are 275 WiMax trials and deployments in 65 countries, of which 75 are actual commercial deployment.

There are huge new commercial WiMax services going online soon, however, from Clearwire and Sprint Nextel, both of which will lead to true commercialization of the market. Ayvazian called that a "huge breakthrough."

WiMax will also probably be offered under the upcoming auction of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band now used by VHF analog TV, although many current trials are in the 3.5 gigahertz band.

WiMax will probably emerge as a two-market model, they said, with one part of the market concentrating on home and business broadband, and another portion of the market concentrated on mobile computing, taking over business that's now provided largely by WiFi hot spots and cell phone air cards.

They also said the market will be comprised of three kinds of businesses: upstarts, which they call "rabbits;" regional pioneers, creating WiMax communities; and "dominant defenders," telecom companies who will use the technology to bring broadband to the masses.

One thing for sure -- there's market demand. A Yankee survey showed that more than 40 percent of North American consumers want mobile internet, but less than 10 percent have it.

Yankee Group predicts WiMax subscribers in North America will grow from one million in 2008 to eight million in 2011.

WiMax developers must also continue to foster companion markets for their service -- the way Google married search and advertising, and the way eBay married online buying with brick-and-mortar buying.

WiMax is also likely to become part of a wide diversity of devices, from cell phones to PDAs to PCs.

Muni Wi-Fi, WiMax

Two afternoon panels took up the issue of municipal wireless projects, in which WiMax will play an increasing part, whether for basic service or backhaul of large groups of data streams.

Panelists said incumbent telecom carrier opposition to public-private wireless partnerships has largely evaporated, and some are joining partnerships.

Several major revenue sources for such systems exist -- subscriptions, value-added services, and advertising.

Grand Rapids' public-private wireless system was held out as a national model.

Sally J. Wesorick, wireless project manager for Grand Rapids, described her city's lengthy process toward a citywide wireless system, which started with eight Wi-Fi demonstration hot spots that generated positive buzz.

The city's goals for the project were public safety, economic development, digital inclusion, improved city services, service for visitors and residents, the ability to attract and retain young professionals -- and to design the system so that there was no burden on taxpayers.

The city plans to use its WiMax network for field reporting, database access, e-mail connectivity, video surveillance, digital photos and work order management.

The city's 2006 request for proposals allowed vendors to build a system with either Wi-Fi or WiMax technology. The city chose WiMax based on site visits to other systems, including a driving test in Greenville, S.C.

The company last December awarded the contract to Clearwire LLC, the first partnership of this type between Clearwire and a municipality. The contract is also believed to be the first large scale municipal mobile WiMax deployment, the first truly cost-neutral arrangement and the first WiMax-Wi-Fi hybrid network.

Clearwire will use city assets to build the system, whose rates will be market-driven, but the deal requires Clearwire to offer cheap, $9.95-a-month accounts to the poorest 5 percent of households in the 45-square-mile city.

The system will have Wi-Fi hotspots for the transition period between now and the time WiMax chipsets are widely available in computers and other devices.

There's not yet a firm date for the network's startup.

Clearwire has 300,000 subscribers around the country for its wireless Internet services.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

A little "3-Card Monte' Anyone?"

The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By


October 9, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

High-Stakes Flimflam

It’s time to rein in the test zealots who have gotten such a stranglehold on the public schools in the U.S.

Politicians and others have promoted high-stakes testing as a panacea that would bring accountability to teaching and substantially boost the classroom performance of students.

“Measuring,” said President Bush, in a discussion of his No Child Left Behind law, “is the gateway to success.”

Not only has high-stakes testing largely failed to magically swing open the gates to successful learning, it is questionable in many cases whether the tests themselves are anything more than a shell game.

Daniel Koretz, a professor at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, told me in a recent interview that it’s important to ask “whether you can trust improvements in test scores when you are holding people accountable for the tests.”

The short answer, he said, is no.

If teachers, administrators, politicians and others have a stake in raising the test scores of students — as opposed to improving student learning, which is not the same thing — there are all kinds of incentives to raise those scores by any means necessary.

“We’ve now had four or five different waves of educational reform,” said Dr. Koretz, “that were based on the idea that if we can just get a good test in place and beat people up to raise scores, kids will learn more. That’s really what No Child Left Behind is.”

The problem is that you can raise scores the hard way by teaching more effectively and getting the students to work harder, or you can take shortcuts and start figuring out ways, as Dr. Koretz put it, to “game” the system.

Guess what’s been happening?

“We’ve had high-stakes testing, really, since the 1970s in some states,” said Dr. Koretz. “We’ve had maybe six good studies that ask: ‘If the scores go up, can we believe them? Or are people taking shortcuts?’ And all of those studies found really substantial inflation of test scores.

“In some cases where there were huge increases in test scores, the kids didn’t actually learn more at all. If you gave them another test, you saw no improvement.”

There is not enough data available to determine how widespread this problem is. “We know it doesn’t always happen,” said Dr. Koretz. “But we know it often does.”

He said his big concern is where this might be happening. “There are a lot of us in the field,” he said, “who think that if we ever really looked under the covers, what we’d find is that the shortcuts are particularly prevalent in lower-achieving schools, just because the pressure is greater, the community supports are less and the kids have more difficulties. But we don’t know.”

One aspect of the No Child Left Behind law that doesn’t get enough attention is that while it requires states to make progress toward student proficiency in reading and math, it leaves it up to the states themselves to define “proficiency” and to create the tests that determine what constitutes progress.

That’s absurd. With no guiding standard, the states’ tests are measurements without meaning.

A study released last week by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the Northwest Evaluation Association found that “improvements in passing rates on state tests can largely be explained by declines in the difficulty of those tests.”

The people in charge of most school districts would rather jump from the roof of a tall building than allow an unfettered study of their test practices. But that kind of analysis is exactly what’s needed if we’re to get any real sense of how well students are doing.

Five years ago, President Bush and many others who had little understanding of the best ways to educate children were crowing about the prospects of No Child Left Behind. They were warned then about the dangers of relying too much on test scores.

But those warnings didn’t matter in an era in which reality was left behind.

“No longer is it acceptable to hide poor performance,” said Mr. Bush, as if those who were genuinely concerned about the flaws in his approach were in favor of poor performance.

During my interview with Dr. Koretz, he noted that by not rigorously analyzing the phenomenon of high-stakes testing, “we’re creating an illusion of success that is really nice for everybody in the system except the kids.”

That was a few days before the release of the Fordham Institute Study, which used language strikingly similar to Dr. Koretz’s. The study asserted that the tests used by states to measure student progress under No Child Left Behind were creating “a false impression of success.”

The study was titled, “The Proficiency Illusion.”

Clarion Call: Michigan's "Economic Competitiveness" Transformation

Conference to Look at Transforming Michigan


Presidents of the three universities that make up the University Research Corridor (URC) consortium will put some big brains together around the task of fixing Michigan’s economy.

They are hosting a conference called "The Role of Engaged Universities in Economic Transformation,” which will gather together leaders from academia, business, government and think tanks to explore ways they can best work together to transform and revitalize the state.

Action teams will work together to come devise the next steps they can take to speed of the development of Michigan's knowledge-based economy. Speakers include:

  • National Academy of Engineering President Charles Vest, president emeritus of MIT and a former University of Michigan provost.
  • U.S. Rep. John Dingell, the dean of the House and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
  • Assistant U.S. Secretary of Commerce Sandy Baruah, who oversees the department's Economic Development Administration.
  • Derrick Kuzak, group vice president of global product development for Ford Motor Co.
  • Rick Snyder, co-founder and CEO of Ardesta LLC and chairman of Gateway Computers.
  • Meijer Inc. President Mark Murray, former president of Grand Valley State University and a former Michigan state budget director.
  • The URC presidents: U-M President Mary Sue Coleman, Wayne State University President Irvin D. Reid and MSU President Lou Anna Simon.

The conference is aimed at addressing the major competitiveness issues raised a recent National Academy of Sciences report called "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' It will take place Oct 15-16 at Rackham Auditorium, 915 E. Washington, Ann Arbor, on the campus of the University of Michigan.

The conference is free and open to the public but registration is required. To register, visit: http://www.urcmich.org/events or http://cms.housing.umich.edu/urc

For a more complete agenda, click here.


DAY 2 AGENDA (See Below "Workforce Needs:"
The Role of STEM Education in the Economy

The Role of Engaged Universities in Economic Transformation
Conference Home

Day 2 - Plenary Session, Rackham Auditorium
and Conference Workshops, michigan League / Alumni center

See Day 1

REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST, 7:30 AM - 8: 30 AM

PLENARY SESSION, 8:30 AM - 9:45 AM
Panel Discussion with
Stephen R. Forrest, Vice President for Research, University of Michigan
Tom Walsh, Business Columnist, Detroit Free Press
Michael Finney, President and CEO, Ann Arbor SPARK
Philip H. Power, Chairman and President, Center for Michigan

WORKSHOPS
10 AM - NOON and 1 PM - 3PM
Box lunch will be provided -- see Registration Form

CONFERENCE WRAP-UP • WINE & CHEESE RECEPTION
3PM - 4:30 PM

Program download (as of 10/5/2007)

Topics

Business/Economic Needs:

  1. University-Business Partnerships
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • Doug Rothwell, President, Detroit Renaissance
    • Marvin G. Parnes, Associate Vice President for Research and Executive Director of Research Administration, University of Michigan
      Afternoon
    • Katherine E. White, Professor, Law School, Wayne State University
    • Fred Reinhart, Associate Vice President for Technology Commercialization, Wayne State University
  2. Regional Economic Development
  3. Venture Capital
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • Mary Campbell, Managing Director, EDF Ventures
    • Cindy Douglas, Michigan Economic Development Corporation
      Afternoon
    • Mark Weiser, Managing Director, RPM Ventures
    • Kenneth J. Nisbet, Executive Director, Office of Technology Transfer, University of Michigan
  4. Great Lakes as an Economic Resource
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • John C. Austin, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
    • Paul N. Courant, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries
      Afternoon
    • Soji Adelaja, John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor in Land Policy, Michigan State University
    • Victoria Pebbles, Associate Program Manager, Great Lakes Commission

Sector Needs:

  1. Universities and Advanced Manufacturing
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • Rick McHugh, Midwest Coordinator, Unemployment Insurance Safety Net Project, National Employment Law Project
    • A. Galip Ulsoy, William Clay Ford Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan
      Afternoon
    • Edward A. Wolking Jr., Executive Vice President, Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce
    • Kenneth Chelst, Chair, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Wayne State University
  2. Universities and the Biotechnology Sector
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning (Biotech/biomed)
    • James R. Baker Jr., Director, Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and the Biological Sciences (M-NIMBS)
    • John C. Greenfield, Executive Director, Core Technology Alliance
      Afternoon (Biotech/biomed)
    • Ramani Narayan, Professor, Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Michigan State University
    • Brian Athey, Associate Professor of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Michigan
      Afternoon (Biotech/bio-fuels/bio-economy)
    • Steven Pueppke, Director, Office of Biobased Technologies, Michigan State University
    • Lawrence A. Molnar, Program Manager, Business & Industrial Assistance Division, University of Michigan
  3. Universities and the Energy Sector
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • Gary S. Was, Director, Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, University of Michigan
    • Jim A. Croce, CEO, NextEnergy
      Afternoon
    • Simon Ng, Professor of Engineering, Wayne State University
    • Levi T. Thompson, Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan
  4. Universities and the Information Technology Sector
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • Michael P. Wellman, Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan
    • Richard Sheridan, President, Menlo Innovations
    • Harry Wan, Vice President, Engineering, Arbor Networks
    • Philip K. McKinley, Michigan State University [TENTATIVE]
      Afternoon
    • Thomas A. Finholt, Research Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Innovation, University of Michigan
    • Farshad Fotouhi, Professor and Chair, Department of Computer Science, Wayne State University [TENTATIVE]
    • Laurence Kirchmeier, Product Development, Merit Network [TENTATIVE]
    • Betty H.C. Cheng, Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State University [TENTATIVE]

Workforce Needs:

  1. Worker Retention and Skill Development
    • Discussion Leaders
    • Paul M. Hunt, Associate Vice President for Research, Michigan State University
    • JaNice Marshall, Dept. Chair, Civil Technology Program, Lansing Community College
    • Larry A. Good, Chairman, Corporation for a Skilled Workforce
    • TBA
  2. The Role of STEM Education in the Economy
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • Joseph S. Krajcik, Professor and Associate Dean, School of Education, University of Michigan
    • Maria M. Ferreira, Associate Professor and Program Coordinator of Science Education, College of Education, Wayne State University
      Afternoon
    • Thomas F. Wolff, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, College of Engineering, Michigan State University
    • Cinda-Sue Davis, Director, Women in Science and Engineering Program
  3. Public attitudes/quality of life
    • Discussion Leaders
      Morning
    • Lou Glazer, President, Michigan Future, Inc.
    • Philip H. Power, Chairman and President, Center for Michigan
    • Eric Cedo, President and Founder, BrainGain Marketing
      Afternoon
    • Donald F. Holecek, Professor, Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University

The conference is being organized by the University Research Corridor. Funding for the conference is provided by the Richard Lounsbery Foundation.

Questions? Contact Conference Management Services, 734-764-5325 or conferences@umich.edu

Signaling a "Decade of Digital Discourse." SEE YOU THERE!

SCIENCE TEACHERS CONVERGE ON COBO

The National Science Teachers Association, the largest professional organization in the world promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning, announced that it will be in Detroit Oct. 18-20 for its 2007 Midwestern Area Conference on Science Education.

Participants from across Michigan and neighboring states will meet to discuss the latest issues in science education, learn about new teaching tools and techniques, network with fellow science education professionals, and hear thought-provoking presentations from world-renowned scientists and educators. The conference will be held at the Cobo Center and other area venues.

Designed to enhance professional development and provide networking forums for science educators, the three-day conference -- held in conjunction with the Metropolitan Detroit Science Teacher Association -- will feature hundreds of presentations about the latest breakthroughs in science and hands-on workshops covering every discipline, grade level and teaching focus.

Educators will discuss popular issues, including the No Child Left Behind Act, science literacy and the nation’s competitiveness, and the teaching of evolution and global climate change. In addition, attendees will hear about the hottest topics in science education from nationally renowned speakers, including Sally Ride, former NASA astronaut and president and CEO of Sally Ride Science.

Attendees will also have the opportunity to explore NSTA’s Exhibition of Science Teaching Materials. From the latest high-tech calculators to scientifically engineered container gardens, attendees will be able to examine and learn about the latest science education materials, laboratory equipment and computer hardware and software available.

For more information, visit www.nsta.org/conferences/2007det/registration.aspx.

Why Mac? TIME!

Forsee: WiMaxed Out

Sprint Chief's Bet Failed to Pay Off

By Frank Ahrens and Kim Hart
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 9, 2007; D01

Perhaps someday, WiMax will be the key to turning around Sprint Nextel, the beleaguered Reston cellphone company. Perhaps someday, consumers will walk and drive across the country, enjoying uninterrupted, high-speed Internet service, watching video, e-mailing and talking on the phone over the Web, thanks to WiMax.

But Sprint chief executive Gary D. Forsee -- the man who committed $5 billion this summer to turn the company into the nation's No. 1 WiMax provider -- won't be around to oversee it.

Forsee resigned yesterday afternoon after running the company for four years. On his watch, Sprint stock steadily climbed, from $12 per share to a high of more than $25 per share in early 2006. But shares have slumped since then, closing down nearly 3 percent yesterday at $18.50, as Wall Street criticized Forsee's decisions.

Specifically, analysts and investors thought that Forsee was short-shrifting his company's core business -- phones -- while throwing a much-riskier, high-cost Hail Mary: building a WiMax network. So far, the expensive project has been met with delays and technical hurdles.

WiMax is like a much bigger WiFi. WiFi allows you to cruise the Web from your local coffee shop without having to plug your laptop into an Internet connection, but if you walk too far away, you lose your signal. WiMax promises high-speed Internet service hundreds of miles wide.

The ultimate dream is overlapping WiMax zones covering the country, letting subscribers stay connected to the Internet even as they travel, getting passed off from one WiMax zone to the next in the same way that cellphone towers pass callers from one phone to the next.

Sprint's $5 billion investment is aimed at slowing other big telecoms, such as Verizon and AT&T, from becoming big players in WiMax. Owning the WiMax space could prove lucrative enough to be a change agent for the troubled Sprint, enabling it to transform from a third-place cellphone carrier that's barely adding customers into the dominant provider of next-generation communications.

This summer, Forsee predicted Sprint would reach 100 million Americans with its WiMax service. In 2006, when Sprint announced plans to build a WiMax network, Forsee said: "We'll give customers the power to harness business information and personal entertainment easily and inexpensively -- and in ways that they will one day wonder how they lived without."

But the technology to make WiMax work has been slow to roll out, and analysts estimate it won't gain consumer momentum until late 2008 at the earliest. Sprint is still testing mobile WiMax technology. It announced during the summer that it would partner with start-up Clearwire, which was trying to build its own WiMax network, to combine forces and speed rollout. But Sprint said last week that the finalization of the Clearwire deal is being delayed.

Sprint is now in the position of figuring how to move forward with the WiMax plan -- without the man who dreamed up the plan. This far in, Sprint may be committed to building out the WiMax network but may not be able to do it fast enough to adequately transform the company to Wall Street's liking.

Sprint's WiMax predicament is like owning miles of pristine beachfront property and then being unable to build condos on your very valuable, exclusive property.

"The fact that they bought a $5 billion network without testing it was a violation of fiduciary duty," said Patrick Comack, senior equity analyst at Zachary Investment Research in Miami Beach. "It's like buying a $5 billion car without test-driving it first."

He added that the company is still struggling to perfect the network's ability to hand over traffic between towers as people move between coverage areas, which is necessary to stay connected while driving, for example.

Forsee found himself in much the same situation as Jean-Marie Messier, former head of Vivendi Universal. Like Forsee, Messier had a vision when he took over the company in 1996.

Messier envisioned that consumers from the Left Bank to Hollywood would pay to download music and videos to their cellphones and mobile devices. Messier spent Vivendi Universal into near-bankruptcy, buying telecom, movie and music companies, chasing the dream.

Messier was right but about five years too early. His company's stock plummeted, the disparate conglomerate never fit together and it ended up getting sold off in pieces. Messier was kicked out by his board in 2002.

Mike Nelson, an analyst with Stanford Group, said investors would not be so concerned about the big bet on WiMax if Sprint was also showing signs of fixing the core wireless business.

"If we were Sprint's CEO for a day, we wouldn't kill WiMax, since it could eventually be a competitive advantage, but would halve the spending in 2008," Philip Cusick, equity research analyst at Bear Stearns, wrote Friday in a note to investors. "We would re-emphasize the core business . . . over non-core distractions" like its prepaid Boost brand and WiMax, he wrote.

In August, Sprint gained new subscribers for the first time in a year but also warned it expected to lose subscribers in the third quarter.

Cusick added that he does not expect WiMax to gain momentum until late 2008 or 2009. A management shift could further delay Sprint in finalizing its contract with Clearwire to build out the network.

"We believe that Sprint is likely to de-emphasize the WiMax business, which could result in a slower rollout for WiMax in the U.S., lower economies of scale for Clearwire and shrink the ecosystem necessary to attract consumer electronics companies to WiMax," Cusick wrote.

Friday, October 5, 2007

Alignment to OUR NSF GRANT Purpose!

Ford likes the look of proposed contract


Chairman says automaker interested in health care fund


October 4, 2007

BY SARAH A. WEBSTER

FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

Ford Motor Co. Executive Chairman Bill Ford indicated on Wednesday that leaders at the company founded by his great-grandfather are generally satisfied with the tentative contract rival General Motors Corp. reached with the UAW.

It is expected to serve as a pattern for the Ford deal.

"The broad framework is certainly something we can work with," Ford told journalists during an appearance in Chicago. He was there for a ceremony to start a national network of community-based high schools, which is being supported by the automaker.

Ford spokesman Mark Truby confirmed the comments, which were first reported by Dow Jones, although he emphasized that the company still is studying the deal.

Ford and crosstown rival Chrysler LLC agreed to an indefinite extension of the current contract after GM was named a strike target Sept. 13.

GM and the UAW reached a deal Sept. 26 after a two-day strike, and the union's 73,000 members at GM continue voting on the proposed contract.

The UAW is expected to resume talks with Ford and Chrysler when the GM-UAW tentative contract is ratified.

Bill Ford, who learned labor relations early in his career from former Vice Chairman Peter Pestillo, seems to have good relations with UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who started his career at a Ford factory in Louisville, Ky., and was head of the UAW's Ford division prior to leading the entire union.

During his Chicago trip, Ford said the company is "very prepared to get going" in talks.

He also said that the automaker is interested in talking to the union about a voluntary employee beneficiary association, or VEBA. That form of union-supervised trust to manage health care for UAW retirees is set to save GM about $20 billion from its $50 billion in related liabilities.

J.P. Morgan Chase estimates Ford's UAW retiree health care liability at $22 billion, indicating possible savings for Ford of $9 billion from a GM-style VEBA.

Bill Ford's comments were notable in that they contrasted with industry experts' recent comments that Ford may need more -- or significantly different -- concessions than those GM won from the UAW.

For Ford, the specifics of the GM agreement could force it to provide greater clarity about its turnaround plan, which aims to make the North American division profitable by 2009, Arthur Wheaton, a labor expert from Cornell University, said last week. Ford lost $12.6 billion last year and is undergoing a restructuring.

David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, said he expects that Ford, when it reaches a deal with the UAW, will disclose the six remaining of 16 plants it plans to close as part of its restructuring. Another large benefit of the proposed contract for GM is the savings related to replacing current workers in noncore jobs with lower-paid union members.

But Ford is ahead of GM in outsourcing noncore jobs, said John Casesa, a veteran auto analyst and managing partner of Casesa Shapiro Group LLC.

Over the past two years, the UAW approved what are known as competitive operating agreements at Ford plants that allowed noncore jobs to be subcontracted out at lower pay. UAW Vice President Bob King said that saved $750 million.

Casesa said the UAW will have to give a different deal to Ford and to Chrysler LLC if it wants to help the companies survive.

"Ford's financial situation remains fragile," Casesa said last week. "Because the main feature of the agreement is relief on health care for retirees and GM has the highest active-to-retiree ratio, it's disproportionately better for GM," he said.

GM provides health benefits to more than four retirees and surviving spouses for every active worker it employs. Ford's ratio is two retirees for each active worker, and Chrysler's ratio is about one-to-one.

Contact SARAH A. WEBSTER at swebster@freepress.com.

(From Jim Bates)

PND Philanthropy News Digest - A service of the Foundation Center
Print • Close Window
News
Posted on October 5, 2007

Henry Ford Learning Institute Launches National Network of Community-Based High Schools

The Henry Ford Learning Institute (HFLI) has announced grants from the Ford Motor Company Fund and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation totaling $11.5 million to launch a national network of small high schools modeled after the Henry Ford Academy in Dearborn, Michigan.

The investment will provide underserved students in urban areas with quality, real world learning environments, a college-preparatory culture, and demanding academic standards. The Henry Ford Academy: Power House High, scheduled to open in Chicago in 2008 in the former Sears Roebuck building, will be the first school in the expanded HFA network. The academy is part of Chicago Public School's Renaissance 2010 initiative, which is working to develop or transform one hundred schools in the city by 2010. In addition, the new academy's curriculum will use the renovated building's "green" features to enhance lessons on the environment, clean technologies, and sustainability.

The $8.5 million investment by the Ford Motor Company Fund, which includes $1.25 million for support planning and operations at Power House High, will help HFLI build the new network of schools. The $3 million grant from the Gates Foundation will support the launch of five new HFAs, including Power House High, in urban communities in the Midwest.

All future academies in the network will be located in prominent public spaces such as cultural institutions, community organizations, or universities, providing students with a content-rich and visible learning experience that is often lacking in traditional school models. Each academy also will be customized to meet local needs and take advantage of each school's unique location and community partners. Partnerships with local employers, including Ford Motor Company and the Chicago-based Siemens Building Technologies, will give students exposure to future work opportunities through internships and other important workplace and learning experiences.

"Ford Motor Company Fund and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation share HFLI's core belief that all students can achieve at high levels when they are provided with quality educational experiences," said HFLI executive director Deborah Parizek. "These grants support the development of sustainable learning environments — public schools in public spaces that involve community partners, localize a proven academic program to incorporate local resources, and make public education a truly public endeavor."

“Henry Ford Learning Institute Launches National Network of Community-Based High Schools.” Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Press Release 10/03/07.

MEAP Easy? But MEAP Scores indicate otherwise!

Click here to return to the The Oakland Press

NEW!
MEAP tests are too easy, national report finds




DETROIT -- A national report says Michigan's proficiency tests might be too easy to truly prepare students for college.

The report released Wednesday and called "The Proficiency Illusion" says the state's reading and math tests are less difficult than most of the 26 states studied.

It shows the scores required to pass Michigan's tests decreased from 2003-05. The news comes just days before the state administers the Michigan Educational Assessment Program tests in grades 3-8.

State officials said that the study is inconsistent with other reports that rank Michigan higher.

The report was conducted for two education research nonprofit organizations.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

INDEED!

Our Schools Must Do Better


Published: October 2, 2007

Boston


I asked a high school kid walking along Commonwealth Avenue if he knew who the vice president of the United States was.

He thought for a moment and then said, “No.”

I told him to take a guess.

He thought for another moment, looked at me skeptically, and finally gave up. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I don’t know.”

The latest federal test results showed some improvement in public school math and reading scores, but there is no reason to celebrate these minuscule gains. We need so much more. A four-year college degree is now all but mandatory for building and sustaining a middle-class standard of living in the U.S.

Over the next 20 or 30 years, when today’s children are raising children of their own in an ever more technologically advanced and globalized society, the educational requirements will only grow more rigorous and unforgiving.

A one- or two-point gain in fourth grade test scores here or there is not meaningful in the face of that overarching 21st-century challenge.

What’s needed is a wholesale transformation of the public school system from the broken-down postwar model of the past 50 or 60 years. The U.S. has not yet faced up to the fact that it needs a school system capable of fulfilling the educational needs of children growing up in an era that will be at least as different from the 20th century as the 20th was from the 19th.

“We’re not good at thinking about magnitudes,” said Thomas Kane, a professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. “We’ve got a bunch of little things that we think are moving in the right direction, but we haven’t stepped back and thought, ‘O.K., how big an improvement are we really talking about?’ ” Professor Kane and I were discussing what he believes are the two areas that have the greatest potential for radically improving the way children are taught in the U.S. Both are being neglected by the education establishment.

The first is teacher quality, a topic that gets talked about incessantly. It has been known for decades that some teachers have huge positive effects on student achievement, and that others do poorly. The positive effect of the highest performing teachers on underachieving students is startling.

What is counterintuitive, but well documented, is that paper qualifications, such as teacher certification, have very little to do with whatever it is that makes good teachers effective.

“Regrettably,” said Professor Kane, who has studied this issue extensively, “we’ve never taken that research fact seriously in our teacher policy. We’ve done just the opposite.”

Concerned about raising the quality of teachers, states and local school districts have consistently focused on the credentials, rather than the demonstrated effectiveness — or ineffectiveness — of teachers in the classroom.

New forms of identifying good teachers and weeding out poor ones — by carefully assessing their on-the-job performance — have to be established before any transformation of American schools can occur.

This can be done without turning the traditional system of teacher tenure on its head. Studies have clearly shown that the good teachers and the not-so-good ones can usually be identified, if they are carefully observed in their first two or three years on the job — in other words, before tenure is granted.

Developing such a system would be difficult. But it’s both doable and essential. Getting serious about teacher quality as opposed to harping on tiny variations in test scores would be like moving from a jalopy to a jet.

The second area to be mined for potentially transformative effects is the wide and varied field of alternative school models. We should be rigorously studying those schools that appear to be having the biggest positive effects on student achievement. Are the effects real? If so, what accounts for them?

The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), to cite one example, is a charter school network that has consistently gotten extraordinary academic results from low-income students. It has worked in cities big and small, and in rural areas. Like other successful models, it has adopted a longer school day and places great demands on its teachers and students.

Said Professor Kane: “These alternative models that involve the longer school day and a much more dramatic intervention for kids are promising. If that’s what it takes, then we need to know that, and sooner rather than later.”

If American kids — all American kids, not just the children of the elite — are to have a fair chance at a rewarding life over the next several decades, we’ve got to give them a school system adequate to the times. They need something better than a post-World War II system in a post-9/11 world.

Monday, October 1, 2007

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Electric Light Orchestra - Hold on Tight

Get Ready, Get Set, GO!

HOW to THINK thought to be important! (28%)

The New York Times

September 30, 2007

Don’t Worry, Be Students

LAURIE HOACHLANDER'S PARENTS may have spent tens of thousands of dollars on the psychology courses she took as an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, but ask the 27-year-old, a member of the class of 2002, what was most valuable about her college years, and her thoughts drift far beyond the classroom window.

There was her year as a resident adviser to a cluster of freshmen in her dormitory at Penn, an experience colored by the attempted suicide of one of her charges, followed by his recovery and return to the hall. “That taught me a lot about crisis management,” she says. Then there was her work as a campus tour guide, which taught her “how to be a better public speaker.” That, she says, wound up serving her well in one of her first jobs, as a leader of seminars for real estate brokers: they would interrupt her presentations with offbeat questions, just like the pesky parents on her tours.

As high-school juniors and seniors descend this fall on fact-finding missions to the nation’s colleges and universities — an indispensable part of the uniquely American hazing known as the college-admissions process — a fresh cast of cheerful student tour guides will steer the conversation through familiar scripts. They’ll dutifully note the number of volumes in the library and the opportunities for undergraduate research and the ratio of professors to students. Only the most persistent of pesky parents will draw out a story like Hoachlander’s of a moment in college life that really made a difference; arguably, it’s the rare undergraduate that has the perspective to recognize that moment, let alone go off script to recount it.

But talk to a couple of thousand recent college graduates, as the magazine did this summer — alumni roughly five years out of school, with the perspective that comes from having got a taste of the real world but with memories of freshman and sophomore years still relatively intact — and enough moments spill out to begin to tell a story. Some graduates fondly recall a special professor, others the opportunity to become more self-sufficient. Some say they didn’t study hard enough; others, though fewer, regret working themselves too hard and wish they’d taken more time to relax or learn about life from their peers. Yet overall, the story told by these survivors of the admissions process is actually pretty simple: college is great. And their message to those coming up behind them — the classes of 2012 and 2013 and 2014, bigger than any generation of college prospects before them and as anxious as their parents are hovering — is pretty simple, too: chill out.

To an astonishing degree, recent graduates surveyed by The New York Times Poll said that they are satisfied with the choices they made about where to go to college and with the educations they received. That seems to hold true whether they went to big schools or small schools, costly private colleges or somewhat more affordable public universities, their first-choice school or their fourth. Like Laurie Hoachlander, though, the young alums acknowledge, in a variety of their responses, that the qualities they or their parents thought were crucial in choosing a college were not necessarily the things that mattered most once they got there. Magazine rankings and a school’s reputation — both extremely important in the minds of many applicants — are often of far less significance to graduates as they reflect on what made their college years worthwhile.

“Now I value the goofy and formative life experiences — driving to Atlantic City on a whim, playing a weekly basketball game with my friends, playing pranks in the dining hall,” wrote Dan Diamond, a newsletter editor who was a classmate of Hoachlander’s in the class of 2002 at Penn.

THOUGH A LARGE industry exists to convince teenagers and their parents otherwise, there is not much science in the search for the right college for a particular student. The data that fill many college guidebooks paint a picture of the student body as it passes through the university’s front gate, taking the students’ measure with SAT scores, class rank and the like. Those lists of “top party schools” or best school for “Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging, clove-smoking vegetarians” — an actual category handicapped by The Princeton Review — come from sampling students still in the hazy thick of the college experience. The totemic rankings by U.S. News & World Report add criteria like alumni giving or admissions selectivity to the soup. We thought it might help families making their way through the admissions maze if we could collect the wisdom of students who had made it all the way out into postgraduate life.

So The New York Times conducted a series of surveys over the summer. Telephone polling in conjunction with mtvU, the music channel’s on-campus network, produced a sample of 271 college graduates under age 30. (The nationwide poll, conducted June 15 to June 23, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus six percentage points.) Separately, online surveys by The Times gathered the replies of more than 1,300 graduates, most in the class of 2002, from three institutions generally regarded as among the finest and most selective in the nation: Penn, an Ivy League university in Philadelphia; Reed College, a small liberal arts school in Portland, Ore.; and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, a state university. I called a dozen alumni afterward to probe more deeply into their responses to the poll questions.

Much of what the polling found falls safely into the category of “reassuring” — not an adjective that tends to be associated with the college search. Among the group surveyed nationally, 93 percent described their overall undergraduate experience as “excellent” or “good”; the results were comparable for the alumni of Penn (95 percent), Michigan (96 percent) and Reed (98 percent). Likewise, asked if their college education “was worth the money you and your parents paid for it,” 89 percent in the national poll said that it was. At Reed and Penn, where tuition bills are among the highest in the nation, 81 percent and 79 percent, respectively, said they got their money’s worth. (At Michigan, where tuition is lower for state residents, 84 percent of alumni agreed.) To plumb whether that learning served any practical purpose, those alumni who said they had jobs were asked whether their undergraduate education “prepared you for the work you are currently doing.” Seventy-five percent in the national poll said yes — very nearly as positive a response as among the graduates of Penn (82 percent), Michigan (83 percent) and Reed (86 percent.)

(The upbeat responses from alumni of those three colleges come with a caveat: the graduates surveyed chose to be in close-enough touch with their alma mater to at least supply an e-mail address where they could be reached. But their answers were similar enough to those of participants in the national poll — who were part of a random sample — to suggest confidence in the results all around.)

Of course, a high-school student staring at a blank college application may be most interested in the answer to the following question: Why? What made these individuals’ college experiences so good? Why was it worth the angst and the hard work and — their parents would probably also want to know — the lingering debts?

For the Penn and Michigan graduates in particular, the answers are not always what they expected back when they were writing essays and filling in SAT bubbles. They recalled being extremely focused on their schools’ brand names: 88 percent of the Penn alums said that reputation was “very” important when they were deciding which school to attend, as did 78 percent of the Michigan alums. Similarly, 85 percent of the Penn graduates and 72 percent of the Michigan grads said that their university’s ranking by U.S. News & World Report was “somewhat” or “very” important when they were making that decision.

Yet five years after graduating, about one-third at each university said that the rankings seemed “less important” to them now than they did in high school. Asked to volunteer what they valued most about their college experience, 10 percent of the Penn alums — and 5 percent of the Michigan graduates — mentioned their alma mater’s reputation. Graduates of both universities were more likely to cite the friendships they made at school. The responses suggest that the critics of college lists are onto something: maybe the devaluing of the rankings can serve as a tonic to the unrelenting obsession they foster among many applicants and their parents.

The Reed alumni teach a different lesson. Reed has long stood opposed to the very idea of college rankings, electing not to provide data to U.S. News, so students in the yearly classes of 300 or so freshman start out picking the school for what it stands for rather than where it stands. And the graduates, looking back, seem to reaffirm the notion that students following their instincts can find their way to the right school. As if parroting the marketing copy in the college’s brochure, alums overwhelmingly endorse Reed’s “conference” style of learning, in which lessons transmitted in lectures are later reinforced in smaller groups where students engage in spirited debates. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents from Reed said that learning “how to think, to work, to learn” in college was what they valued most now. Another 27 percent cited research skills or other kinds of training.

One was Andrew Schpak, 27, a litigator in Portland who graduated in 2001. He said the school’s emphasis on Socratic learning was perhaps as valuable as anything he learned at Cornell law school in preparing him to argue before judges, juries and opposing lawyers. “Reed taught me to think on my feet, to think beyond my gut reaction and to think about what might make me change my mind,” he told me in a follow-up interview.

One conclusion to be drawn from Andrew’s obvious satisfaction with his education, when laid alongside the responses of so many of his peers, is that the convoluted process of matching students to colleges ultimately does what it is supposed to do. But in the end, I also find myself reflecting on the ongoing regrets expressed by so many of the alumni we contacted — not with their overall college experiences but with the day-to-day choices they made, whether it was the belly-dancing class that one Reed graduate said she missed out on because she was studying too hard or the Greek tragedy that lay untouched on another Reed student’s dorm-room bookshelf and now, in all likelihood, will never be opened.

Perhaps we should be spending a little less time coaching and cajoling high-school students about how to get into college, or even how to identify that mythical “right” college, and instead help them prepare a little better for how to strike a balance, or explore what they hope to accomplish, once they get there.

Jacques Steinberg is a reporter for The New York Times and the author of “The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of a Premier College” (Viking Penguin). Marjorie Connelly of The Times Poll designed the surveys and contributed to this article.

INSIGHTFUL and INTENTIONAL!

The Unsung Heroes Who Move Products Forward

Illustration by James Yang

Published: September 30, 2007

AT first blush, the iPhone from Apple, the new microprocessor family from Intel and the ubiquitous Google search engine have nothing in common. One is a gadget, one is an electronic part and one is a service.

Yet all of these products — much acclaimed for their creativity — depend on obscure process innovations that, while highly complex and lacking glamour, are an essential part of establishing a winning edge in commercial electronics. Indeed, the success of Apple, Intel, Google and scores of other technology companies has as much or more to do with their process innovations as the products that inspire loyalty among fans and admiration from foes.

First, a definitional detour. Processes are the stuff in the proverbial “black box,” the alchemy unseen by consumers or the inelegantly termed “end users” who buy computers, cellphones, cameras and all manner of digital devices and services.

Snazzy products are the stuff of legends, romanticized by “early adopters” and skewered by neo-Luddites. Yet while these products bring glory to companies, novel processes are often more important in keeping the cash registers ringing.

The proof of this proposition is that while companies often spend millions to advertise and market new product designs and innovations, they guard intensely the details of their process innovations.

Consider the question of Google’s greatest business secret. Is it the algorithms behind its search tools? Or is it the way it organizes vast clusters of computers around the globe to answer queries so quickly? Perhaps predictably, Google won’t disclose the number of computers deployed in its vast information network (though outsiders speculate that the network has at least 450,000 computers).

I believe that the physical network is Google’s “secret sauce,” its premier competitive advantage. While a brilliant lone wolf can conceive of a dazzling algorithm, only a superwealthy and well-managed organization can run what is arguably the most valuable computer network on the planet. Without the computer network, Google is nothing.

Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, appears to agree. Last year he declared, “We believe we get tremendous competitive advantage by essentially building our own infrastructures.”

Process innovations like Google’s computer network are often invisible to the public, and impossible to duplicate by rivals. Yet successful companies realize that maintaining competitive advantage depends heavily on sustaining process innovations. Great process innovators often support basic research in relevant fields, maintain complete control over the creation of every aspect of a product and refuse to rely on outside suppliers for important components. Certainly, there are exceptions to these patterns, but even companies like Apple that buy essential processes on the open market nevertheless invest in gaining a working knowledge of the technologies and an understanding of their future arc.

Intel treats its process innovations as a competitive weapon, striving to create a “new generation” every two years. That enables the company’s chips, even if there were no changes in their design, to perform better and cost less to make.

Consumers are usually blind to the importance of novel processes. Even when they learn about these innovations, they tend to think only of the product itself.

“The average consumer doesn’t care what processes are used,” says Mark T. Bohr, an Intel physicist who oversaw what is arguably the most important advance in decades in the technology for making microprocessors, the brains inside computers and other digital devices.

Faced with ever-faster chips that threatened to explode into flames, Intel searched desperately for new processes to make microprocessors. Enter hafnium, a rare metal. Designers led by Mr. Bohr in Hillsboro, Ore., chose hafnium to replace silicon oxide, the venerable insulator in chips and a material used in making glass. Mr. Bohr also helped to identify new materials, whose identity Intel is keeping secret, for the crucial transistor “gates” that sit atop a chip’s insulators.

On Nov. 12, Intel will begin shipping its first chips using the new processes. Gordon E. Moore, Intel’s co-founder, recently declared that the hafnium-and-gate process innovations should allow his so-called Moore’s Law, whereby chips grow ever faster and less expensive, to hold true for some time.

Despite the enormity of the achievement, Mr. Bohr is relatively anonymous, even within Intel. “The work of process development comes second to creating new designs for chips,” he says. Not surprisingly, when Intel starts shipping the new chips, neither the hafnium nor the gates innovations will be trumpeted as selling points. Rather, Intel will emphasize how customers can benefit from using the chips.

If process innovations are unheralded, consumers may misunderstand the nature of technological change.

“Process innovation tends to receive less attention from the informed public for the same reason that incremental innovation tends to receive too little attention: it is more difficult to encapsulate in a press release or photo opportunity,” says David C. Mowery, a business professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a scholar of technological change.

“Process innovation, even more than most product innovations, also tends to realize its economic potential through a lengthy process of incremental improvement based on learning by doing and other types of learning,” he added. “So ‘breakthroughs’ in process engineering are, if anything, even rarer than in product innovation.”

As a result, process gurus are resigned to playing in the shadows, leaving fame, if not fortune, to others. John Feland, human interface architect at Synaptics Inc. in Santa Clara, Calif., knows this enduring truth of invention. He helps design arrays of sensors that drive the touch screens in the newest cellphones like the Prada from LG. Such touch screens are earning raves from consumers, yet Mr. Feland is essentially an invisible man.

“My job is to make our customers look like heroes,” he says philosophically. Then he sums up the special role played by fellow members of the process tribe: “We are like Q to James Bond.”

G. Pascal Zachary teaches journalism at Stanford and writes about technology and economic development. E-mail: gzach@nytimes.com.