Work(s) in Progress

Transparency

I moved from a private university to a public one on January 1. In the private world, compensation was sometimes whispered about but few really knew how their peers, subordinates or supervisors were compensated. Oh speculation abounded, but having been in a position to know some real numbers, the speculators were often very wrong.

I have discovered that my new university opens everything up not only internally but externally as well. I've been typing in names of friends, colleagues and acquaintances all evening. The data have been fascinating. It pays to be hired now. So many newly recruited assistant professors out earn their long tenured colleagues. If you are job hunting, I strongly encourage you to plow through the data batch by batch so that you negotiate well.

University salaries not your cup of tea, well one of our local papers, the Denver Post, has made all sorts of data freely available in their Data Center.Crime, compensation, foreclosure maps, sex assaults by graphical map, truly whatever interests you. I really did not need to know that my teenage neighbor is listed as a sex offender (yes really) in one of these databases.

I have mixed feelings about all of this transparency. I got a memo in my work email today. There is a now released "sexual predator" who has moved near one of our campuses. This memo had a summary of his record, his name, his address, his photo - with this description "Fondled 8 yoa female at work site, and had her perform oral sex." Do you feel safer now? How long before this man, with his photo and name given to thousands of us, is lynched? Should I feel better that I'm decades older than his alleged target? That I have no kids? Can this guy move forward on better behavior without paying for this every day, even now that he's served his time? How can he possibly get work with a memo of this type following him wherever he moves? This does not mean I don't feel his crime was heinous. I do. But I wonder whether and how all of this transparency is serving us.

Do you feel better knowing that your colleague is earning $750 more or less than you per year? That a released felon is in your neighborhood? That your new neighbors bought your old neighbor's house for cheap in a foreclosure auction?

Me? I like data. Data comforts me. Or perhaps I should say, the analysis of data comforts me. But some of these random facts...oh those I could really live without.

Whatever floats your boat

I've done extensive diversity training in higher education. I suspect that educational institutions are among the most tolerant and accepting organizations on the planet. Color, gender, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, whatever. You name it and we have a special training about it. In general, the ivory tower is a tolerant place, first by mandate and ultimately by familiarity. There are exceptions but they are rare. Even so, I am occassionally surprised.

I got an email today from a genetically female colleague whom I've known as "Alice" for several years. She/he wrote: "I have been working toward formally transitioning my gender for some time now. Effective this Monday, I will be living full time as a male and my new name will be "Adam". I understand using the new name and different pronouns may be difficult, however I am eager to help things go smoothly. If you have questions or would like to talk about this, please let me know. This is our workplace and I intend to maintain the same professional standards I always have."

Of course, the first thing that jumped into my mind was the headline I saw today about the pregnant man.

I know heterosexual folks who've taken to calling their spouses their "partners" to be more inclusive. I have married male friends (to each other) where I am unsure whether to ask of their husband, partner, spouse, wife (is one of them the wife?!). Is there some website that has the correct nomenclature somewhere? Yes I've had tons of training but it's a moving target.

I guess mostly this stuff leaves me befuddled. If sexuality is a continuum (I believe this), I'm at one of the ends. I'm a gal and I like guys. It would take Angelina Jolie for me to even think about experimenting. So, while I can accept it (if that is your thing), I don't feel it. I once had a more balanced female friend grope me in the communal college shower. Um, yeah, really not my thing. But if it yours, more power to you. I apologize in advance if I lack the correct vocabulary. It's not that I don't accept who you are. I do. You just may need to educate me a bit more.

67 Myths of Entrepreneurship

I just finished The Illusions of Entrepreneurship: The Costly Myths That Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Policy Makers Live By by Scott A. Shane a Professor of Economics and the A. Malachi Mixon III Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University (my undergraduate alma mater). The book received great publicity in Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere.

It's a terrific scholarly work that shattered some of my illusions of entrepreneurship. Scott crushes 67 myths or shares 67 truths depending on your perspective.

 Let's start with #1: America is NOT becoming more entrepreneurial. The rate of start-up creation has been declining over the last 20 years. This ties to #2 - there are many countries that are much more entrepreneurial than the USA.

A few things surprised (and depressed) me:

• immigrants are not more likely to start their own businesses (#18)
• networking skill does not matter (#19)
• venture capitalists fund less than one-tenth of one percent of all start-ups and account for less than two percent of all small business financing (#35)
• the typical entrepreneur earns less money than he would have earned had he worked for someone else (#39)
• compared to start-ups led by men, new businesses led by women have lower sales, fewer employees, less productivity, lower profits, and worse survival rates (#54)
• blacks create new businesses at only one-third the rate of whites and this pattern has persisted for decades (#56)
• encouraging start-ups is lousy public policy because ... we have a lot of evidence that these policies lead people to start marginal businesses that are likely to fail, have little economic impact, and generate little employment (#62)

All this painted a pretty bleak picture of entrepreneurship in America for me. Unless you are a job hopping, now unemployed, 40 year old white male who is sick of working for others (yep that stereotype is true) you might as well give up your dream. Sigh.

But the book smartly ended with some recommendations. What businesses are likely to succeed and drive economic growth? More importantly, what should we do? Scott's advice is somewhat like Castor oil - good for you but hard to swallow. Here is a snippet:

A strategy that revolves around increasing the number of new businesses created every year is flawed. Increasing the number of people founding construction firms and hair salons and taxi services that don't do anything innovative isn't going to do us much good. In fact, it might hinder our economic growth because new businesses are, on average, less productive than existing ones.

Instead of believing naively that all entrepreneurship is good, we need to recognize that only a select entrepreneurs will create the businesses that will take people out of poverty, encourage innovation, create jobs, reduce unemployment, make markets more competitive, and enhance economic growth. Therefore, as unfair as it may sound, we need to "stop spreading the peanut butter so thin." We need to recognize that all entrepreneurs are not created equal. We need to think like venture capitalists and concentrate our time and money on extraordinary entrepreneurs and worry less about the typical ones.

There is more, much more. Importantly, all of these recommendations tie to decades of data. Get your own copy: The Illusions of Entrepreneurship: The Costly Myths That Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Policy Makers Live By

Choose Research

A former lab technician of mine who is now a graduate student in a Department of Biological Sciences sent this to me today.  It may not be meaningful to anyone who has not spent time as an academic scientist but it made me laugh. Sadly there is much truth in this. If the text is hard to read, then click the image and it should open in a new larger format (warning, profanity).

People ask if I regret my career shift which is moving me away from the lab, away from research. Um, no. Never.

Do I still believe that basic biomedical research is the best way to understand and one day cure disease? Absolutely. Does it need to be me doing the work? Not anymore.

Lost and Found

Something that I thought was lost has now been found.

I can finally write about it as it is now official.

On January 1, I begin a new professional journey. My escape the rut post was entirely  auto-biographical. Those were the steps I took to leave the well trodden path that was laid before me. I am so very excited (and utterly terrified).

Pondering Oprah

I've been thinking a lot about Oprah Winfrey over the last few weeks. I've never seen her TV show but know that it is popular. She  routinely makes the top 50 lists of the most powerful women in the world hosted by Forbes or Fortune. I am always interested in how people in such positions decide to use their power.

Oprah made headlines last month for some alleged abuses by a head mistress at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls she opened in South Africa in January of 2007 (wikipedia link).

Back in July of 2006, I shared my dream of boarding schools, such as that built by Oprah, being safe havens for any who need them. This idea, for me, started back at least a year prior in an international entrepreneurship class where we were asked to come up with international franchise opportunities. I presented a scaled down version of a non-profit boarding school that grew during my visionary leadership class as described here.

My thought on hearing about the scandals at Oprah's school was not "oh the horror" but "oh my gosh she built my dream!" Oprah started this dream back in 2000 after a meeting with Nelson Mandela. She almost gave up when people could not see her vision for this school. She built a magnificent learning center for young women in South Africa. The mission of her school is simple.

The Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls - South Africa supports the development of a new generation of women leaders who, by virtue of their education and leadership, will lead the charge to positively transform themselves, their communities and the larger world around them. To accomplish this goal, the Academy provides a rigorous and supportive educational environment for academically talented girls who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. The Academy strives to equip its learners with the intellectual and social skills necessary to assume positions of leadership in South African society and beyond.

I can already envision the impact these young women will have on the future of our world.

You can learn a lot about a person by observing how they react in a crisis. When Oprah learned of the alleged abuses at her school, she literally dropped everything and went to South Africa. The headmistress accused of the assaults was fired. Oprah apologized to the students and their families. Each student was provided a cell phone and Oprah's direct number. The girls were told to call her with any problems or concerns. It is so uncommon these days to see leaders taking responsibility. Oprah completely owned this problem, claimed it, and empowered all in her care, even if really they are only in her care in name only, to contact her directly.

I think that all of our educational leaders could learn from Oprah's response to this crisis. The next time you see a bomb threat or shooting on a college or high school campus, could you imagine the principal or president responding in this way? You might think that these people could not possibly have the time to answer so many phone calls, to personally talk to each person who is concerned or affected. I used to think so myself. But if Oprah has time to do this, how could they not? In the face of this extraordinary example, how can any of our educational leaders do less.

Got Math?

I am somewhat embarrassed to mention that after a 3 year TV watching hiatus I've been sucked back in to prime time TV because of the Internet. It started with Moonlight, a show with some of the same writers as Angel. It's about a vampire, with a conscious, working as a private detective. It's more drama, than comedy, which I appreciate and best of all, I've been able to watch it on the computer at my convenience.

The show after Moonlight, is NUMB3RS. I kept seeing the advertisements but could not figure out what it was about. So I watched one. This almost seems like a Department of Education sponsored show. It's about an FBI team, where the team leader is related to a math professor. The math professor, and his geeky friends, use mathematics to solve crimes, generally murders. It's smart and funny. More importantly, it introduces the watcher to complex mathematical concepts and theorems, making them fun and sexy. For example, last week's episode (Primacy) used mathematical algorithms to discern which players in a massively multiplayer online game were the likely perpetrators of a murder. 

Texas Instruments has teamed with NUMB3RS to create lesson plans for high school students based on the TV show. Talk about making math sexy. I love it. The website is called We All Use Math Every Day. Teachers can download lesson plans based around the mathematical theorems shown in each episode.

HERS Institute November

We finished up our HERS Institute Denver over the last two days. The last few sessions were on career mapping, diversity issues and leading from wherever you are within your organization. Overall, the HERS Institute over the last few months has been outstanding. I have met some amazing and inpiring women. I received an almost overwhelming amount of advice and support.

Dreams that I thought were crushed, suddenly reappeared on my BlackBerry, during the career planning session Friday. A few life changing conversations were had during the breaks. I'm still reeling inside. I'm feeling a bit like Cinderella waiting for my magical gifts to turn back into a pumpkin & rags. A Fedex package was waiting for me when I got home. It all seems real. When did my life become a fairy tale?

Standing in the Shadow

The HERS Denver Institute has just one more weekend session before we complete the program. This coming weekend, we will focus on charting our futures and mapping our careers. As part of this, we are doing some exercises from the book Career Aspirations & Expeditions: Advancing your Career in Higher Education Administration. A coauthor of the book, Nancy Archer Martin, will be teaching our sessions. In large part the book is very similar to What Color is Your Parachute? with an extreme focus on Higher Education and the path to becoming perhaps a University President or Chancellor. There is an extensive section on negotiating the position and being sure to include such critical items as a spousal stipend. A 1998 survey found that 21% of institutions gave some form of assistance to a president's spouse, including a car allowance, support staff, or salaries. I suspect this percentage has only increased.

With this on my mind, I recently ran into an acquaintance whose spouse has always been a step or three ahead on the Higher Ed career trajectory than she was. He is at the pinnacle of his career and she seemingly has been forced into that role of "wife" and "supporter." Since I spend so much time on my own personal and professional development, I try to imagine how she does not chafe at these roles. How does she do this? Her time is no longer her own. Most days and evenings are filled with "must attend" events. She's made the difficult decision to make her own career path subordinate to her husband's, although she remains successful and productive in her own right. Perhaps she is content to always stand a bit in the shadow. I just don't know. I think all of us have a bit of Hillary Clinton in us wondering when it's going to be our turn to shine. When does she get her turn? Perhaps more importantly, who can she talk to? If her husband talks with her for advice, she now has information that cannot be shared with her peers. How does she handle this? How lonely this must be. Is there anyone in whom she can confide? How does she do this year after year? Perhaps for her, this is all easy and these things never cross her mind. I don't know. I only know how I would feel in her position. Whenever I see her, I always find myself wondering whether there is any way I can make her life easier. Any suggestions?

Pondering Watson

James Watson, the Nobel Laureate, recently made headlines for his controversial remarks on race. While he is known in the scientific community for his generally controversial and inflammatory nature, he may be remembered for these words and not for his role in the discovery of the structure of DNA: 

A profile quoted him as saying that he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really." He said that while he hopes everyone is equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

After apologizing, he did try to clarify his words:

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things," he is quoted as saying. "The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity."

"It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

Many scientists and groups hastily distanced themselves from Watson, who has now retired from his position as the Chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory after nearly 40 years of service to the organization.

Similarly, the American Society for Human Genetics, of which I am a member, is preparing a rebuttal of Watson's controversial claims. Their statement, still in draft form, reads,

"The American Society of Human Genetics is committed to scientific integrity, and values the contributions of researchers and clinicians to the advancement of human genetics.

We consider the recent statements attributed to James Watson in the London times to be tragically misguided because there is no scientific evidence for differences in intellectual ability among racial groups.

Our organization promotes accurate reporting and rigorous interpretation of all scientific data to insure benefit to all people."

I started reading Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fates of human societies by Jared Diamond today. So far, it is fascinating reading, a brief history of the world from about 13,000 BC to present. Why did human populations around the globe develop and utilize technologies at different rates? The goal of this work, and I do not yet know the answer, is why some societies became "civilized" while others did not. With Watson's bias on my mind, these two paragraphs of Diamond's really stood out in stark contrast. How differently these two scientists approach the same question, the same set of "facts."

It seems logical to suppose that history's pattern reflects innate differences among people themselves. Of course, we're taught that it's not polite to say so in public. We read of technical studies claiming to demonstrate inborn differences, and we also read rebuttals claiming that those studies suffer from technical flaws. We see in our daily lives that some of the conquered peoples continue to form an underclass, centuries after the conquests or slave imports took place. We're told that this too is to be attributed not to any biological shortcomings but to social disadvantages and limited opportunities.

Nevertheless, we have to wonder. We keep seeing all those glaring, persistent differences in people's status. We're assured that the seemingly transparent biological explanation for the world's inequalities as of AD 1500 is wrong, but we're not told what the correct explanation is. Until we have some convincing, detailed, agreed-upon explanation for the broad pattern of history, most people will continue to suspect that the racist biological explanation is correct after all. That seems to me the strongest argument for writing this book.

I have another 400 pages to go, but I suspect it will be fascinating reading. If nothing else, it will serve as a reminder that perhaps the most important quality a scientist can have is an open mind.