Does Success in Life Depend on Understanding Both Technology and Constitutional Law? (ri.gov) 93
Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: In 2019's The Two Codes Your Kids Need to Know, the New York Times' Thomas Friedman reported that of all the skills and knowledge the College Board tested young people for, it determined that mastering "two codes" — computer science and the U.S. Constitution — were the most correlated to success in college and in life.
On Wednesday, Rhode Island announced it's teaming with the College Board to ensure schoolkids study the "Two Codes"...
The press release says they're "launching a partnership to advance two key educational goals: understanding how the U.S. Constitution works and how technology can power solutions to problems facing our world... Each school will identify two teacher leads, a Computer Science teacher and a Government and Politics teacher, who will coordinate their school's participation in the program. The leads will receive a stipend of $1,500 per year, and the College Board will provide a broad range of support for the training of teachers and implementation of the effort."
The College Board's Chief of Global Policy and External Relations says in the announcement that "It's not enough to be users of technology; this generation of students needs to guide it and make it work for democracy."
On Wednesday, Rhode Island announced it's teaming with the College Board to ensure schoolkids study the "Two Codes"...
The press release says they're "launching a partnership to advance two key educational goals: understanding how the U.S. Constitution works and how technology can power solutions to problems facing our world... Each school will identify two teacher leads, a Computer Science teacher and a Government and Politics teacher, who will coordinate their school's participation in the program. The leads will receive a stipend of $1,500 per year, and the College Board will provide a broad range of support for the training of teachers and implementation of the effort."
The College Board's Chief of Global Policy and External Relations says in the announcement that "It's not enough to be users of technology; this generation of students needs to guide it and make it work for democracy."
Neither of these (Score:5, Interesting)
To be successful you need to understand enough human psychology to work with those around you to achieve your aims and enough chutzpa to make it happen. Sure: a good trade/profession and an understanding of your rights & obligations help but these are not enough unless you can create or find an environment within which you can succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
> to work with those around you to achieve your aims and enough chutzpa to make it happen
Certainly that's one thing that can really help.
I note that law is all about how people should interact with each fairly, recognizing and respecting the rights of each party.
I'm certainly no expert at interpersonal relationships, but I think my study of law, and Constitutional law, has developed some skills that help. It makes me see the other person's point of view, understand that when we disagree it's because the
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Neither of these (Score:3)
The law never tells you what you should do to be fair, or even to be a decent human being, it only tells you what you must or mustn't do if you want to be eligible for your technicality which you then still have to argue for i
Re:Neither of these (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in Canada, the courts rejected most minimal sentences due to the cruel and unusual punishment clause of our Constitution. Ended up with the Conservative government attacking the Chief Justice and rest of Supreme Court for having the opinion that minimum sentences can be cruel and it is mostly up to the courts to decide punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
What is interesting with law, is you can either track all precedence or understand the nature of how precedents evolve over time and how you can extrapolate and interpolate logic legal precedence and remain one up on the law by knowing how and where to look and interpret, the letter of the law, the law as written.
Wow, the US supreme court is such a perversion of that principle set in precedence, we think they believed when they wrote it they might have meant this interpretation that favours corporations. T
Re: (Score:2)
I note that law is all about how people should interact with each fairly, recognizing and respecting the rights of each party.
A lot of law is about taking away rights of people. The drug laws are one of the best examples, killing more people here then Corvid due to encouraging a black market in poison.
Ultimate case of correlation != causation (Score:2, Insightful)
This is almost like seeing flies on corpses and deciding that flies cause death, and therefore focusing young people's education on fly avoidance.
Success in life is primarily based on privilege - today, nothing is a better predictor of success than your father's income. They've picked up on a couple of traits that successful people commonly have - tech skills from Silicon Valley tech bros and constitutional law skills from lawyers and conservative heir failsons - and they think these things cause success, w
Re: (Score:2)
That inheritance is merely a factor of how your life will be, not individual success. It just gives you more shots at failure in an attempt to achieve that one success (which makes it an influencing factor, just like everything else).
MBAs are only significant in certain enterprises (large ones). A lot of the real money is being made in startups and small business, where MBA definitely isn't a signifier.
I'd say that the two mentioned in the article are fairly good aspects to have. Communication to translat
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the real money is being made in startups and small business, where MBA definitely isn't a signifier.
This is a quite idealistic world view. In fact, larger companies in the most cases are more efficient than smaller companies and have a higher return on capital. If it were otherwise, companies wouldn't tend to grow, but constantly split into smaller companies like cells after reaching a certain size. And while we have the cases that companies split, and while we have the success stories of startups, they are few in between. Most startups fail, and most small companies at best deliver a steady income, but n
Re: Ultimate case of correlation != causation (Score:4, Interesting)
I think there are tiers of happiness varying levels of wealth brings.
Do I have enough money to: :-)
Eat
Sleep on a bed
Have a home with a locked door
Have transportation
Afford medical care
Insurance for random bad stuff
Cheap entertainment (phone, Netflix, etc)
Children and all the stuff they need (their own version of this list)
Education
Expensive entertainment (travel, fancy car)
Staff (gardener, maid twice a month)
Other luxuries (jewelry, designer clothes, very fancy car, travel over seas)
Super luxuries (multiple large homes, yachts, full time staff)
Full time psychologist to deal with the issues money can't help
To a point the more money you gave the happier you'll be but money definitely does not solve all problems. It solves a hell of a lot of them. But not all.
Re: (Score:3)
There's been studies that show that maximum happiness for most people is achieved with about $70k income. That was a couple of years back and varies on the cost of living where you reside.
Once you get to a certain point, perhaps these,
Expensive entertainment (travel, fancy car)
Staff (gardener, maid twice a month)
Other luxuries (jewelry, designer clothes, very fancy car, travel over seas)
Super luxuries (multiple large homes, yachts, full time staff)
The money creates more headaches then it solves.
Re: Ultimate case of correlation != causation (Score:1)
I think it's a few plateaus. Basically the traditional classes: destitute, poor, blue collar, middle class, upper class, rich, super rich. Overall, I think most people would rather have the problems of the super rich than any other class. Life isn't perfect, everyone has problems. But if my biggest problem is which mansion to buy next week or what country I want breakfast in tomorrow I'd be good with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the super rich, especially those not born into it, do seem to have problems related to depression, including suicide. It's still better to have too much money then not enough. Personally, currently I barely have enough money and am fairly content, though a couple of emergencies would change that as my savings aren't as high as I'd like.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of hungry hard workers running back and forth to their multiple jobs to try to pay their bills.
Re: Ultimate case of correlation != causation (Score:2)
nothing is a better predictor of success than your father's income.
Another excellent example of correlation not equaling causation.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly, it's not a direct cause, but it's an incredibly close correlation that resembles an indirect cause:
https://www.wnpr.org/post/geor... [wnpr.org]
No other factor correlates more closely, not education, not hours worked, nothing. This is a correlation that looks a lot like causation, only distinguishable by the existence of outliers.
Re: (Score:3)
The other part of the story is that suspects were dumb in that they did not realize why we have the right to remain silent. I see this all the time with kids. They want to be heard, they believe that people who listen care. I see them growing up into adults who just like to babble, just like to get their way and, as stated, mak
Re: (Score:1)
One comes from the other. If you understand the constitution, you will understand how society is supposed to work and how you can best optimize your own life and values as such and you will succeed.
Eg. the right to free speech and the right to bear arms makes for a polite society (not sure who said that but it's a quote I've heard before), if you know anyone can carry a gun, you won't just yell at them for stupid stuff and get yourself to jail over some stupid fight, and you'll often find friends that have
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or change your domain to .us and show your true colours.
Hey, I already have a .us domain... because it's shorter than my old .net.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What country are you from? Instead of whining about a US site having a US focus maybe you could share what the success factors are in your country.
Realizing that others are smarter and wiser then you and listening with respect to them.
Lose the Signal (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last 15 years or so, there was an observation that taking Algebra II in high school had the highest correlation with success in the college and workplace. So a bunch states moved to make it mandatory for high school graduation. Which is to say: it was formerly the first optional math course, that the student (and/or their family) had to proactively opt into and decide to take. But arguably that was what was being really measured in the first place. I think that states that made it mandatory didn't really see positive effects, and have rolled it back in recent years (starting with Texas).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/requiring-algebra-ii-in-high-school-gains-momentum-nationwide/2011/04/01/AF7FBWXC_story.html
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2018/02/texas_dropped_algebra_ii_its_schools_didnt.html
Likely same thing Here? CS and Constitutional law are not required subjects in high school (last I checked). Seems pretty likely that again, what's being measured here is young people's propensity to go beyond the minimum school requirements and search out and study something (maybe anything) on their own accord. Most people won't/cannot do that. Make these things school subjects and the signal will just shift to whatever the next non-requirement is.
Correlation suggests places to search for cause. (Score:3)
Maybe the determinant of success here wasn't that the students studied Algebra II, but that they opted into it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, most likely it is the fact that they were willing to opt into it. They either had the right intrinsic makeup or were raised in such a way that they were likely to be successful, regardless of what classes they take in high school.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lose the Signal (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I kind of like what Texas has done -- at least on paper.
Algebra II mostly prepares students to take more advanced math courses. Texas allows students a choice of Algebra II, statistics, or "algebraic reasoning". "Algebraic reasoning" focuses on common workplace skills, like estimation, reading and producing graphs and diagrams, and generally the kinds of math you're likely to encounter in general business.
My main criticism would be that by the time a student has reached that point he should already know all the stuff covered in "Algebraic Reasoning". But we all know that doesn't always happen. Many students fall behind, managing to squeak through earlier math courses with a passing grade but with no functional grasp of the material.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a not-terrible choice. My one concern is how that third class sounds like what's called "Quantitative Reasoning" in community colleges. In my experience, it's interpreting concrete numbers and charts, which I agree should be covered by junior high-school. There's no algebraic content in the sense being able to manipulate expressions algebraically, drawing conclusions from a symbolic statement, being ready to take calculus, etc. In this case calling it "Algebraic Reasoning" sounds like a deceptio
Goodhart's law incoming (Score:4, Funny)
On Wednesday, Rhode Island announced it's teaming with the College Board to ensure schoolkids study the "Two Codes"
Sounds like a perfect illustration of Goodhart's law [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting coincidence (Score:2)
I find this interesting just because those are two of my three primary interests. Everybody has different interests and those happen to be mine.
When I was twelve years old, my favorite books were Constitutional law books. I read "The Adjudication of Social Issues" cover to cover multiple times. I continue to rrad SCOTUS cases - the justices write a few pages about each decision and I find them very interesting. As some regulars here know, I routinely comment on issues of Constitutional law discussed here
Re: (Score:2)
There is a balance to be had here: there are some people in the world who struggle with being TOO gratification-delaying, always preparing for some hypothetical future point, never actually getting to enjoy their lives. Personally I'd want to be sensitive/careful that I'm giving advice helpful to the individual in the direction they're struggling with. (Speaking as someone who got kind of bad advice in that regard from their family.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most important thing I learned, though, isn't related to either of those fields, and isn't nearly as complicated as either. I've done plenty of dumb things. Most, probably nearly all, of my fuck-ups have been based on short-term thinking, doing what I feel like doing in the moment. (...) I hope to continue to teach my daughter (and myself) the value of delayed gratification, of doing things that are going to make you happy NEXT week, next year, or five years from now, as opposed to what we feel like doing right this moment.
Funny, I wish I had more of the first bit. Not my fuck-ups but the best times are those where I've been living in the moment and let go of all the rational, dull downers like that this junk food isn't good for me or that partying this hard will give me a hangover tomorrow or that this vacation is burning a hole in my wallet. Like I know that I'm overall fairly rational and got my shit in order, can't I get a break when I have a few excesses without that nagging party pooper in the back of my head. It's okay
again with this brogrammer shit (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably THE primary trait of those afflicted with TDS is to somehow bring up Trump in every conversation, no matter how unrelated, just so they can bitch about him.
This really is a mental illness, and should be treated as such.
Re: (Score:2)
If only he knew about Freedom of Association.
Re: Not so sure about this (Score:1)
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!
That is all. Carry on.
(Lol, here for lameness filter only because reasons, even though somehow the Nazi flag crap makes it through)
Correlation does not equal successful manipulation (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
A branch of physics suggests observing the outcome, changes the outcome. But with humanistic concerns, we observe the outcome to willfully change the outcome. Alas, with humans, every policy works once: Causing true believers (of that policy) to assume that permanent equilibrium is possible if one finds the magic number. eg. The Laffer curve and taxation rates.
In the above example, the problem was, the implemented policy (tax-cuts for the rich) had nothing to do with the Laffer curve.
No (Score:1)
We managed to outmaneuver the neanderthals and take over the world using only technology (with the addition of war and rape). I'm not a history expert but I don't think constitutional law was a big factor in our success there.
Re: No (Score:2)
Oh, really? The fact that England was an example of quasi-constitutional law in the Middle Ages, and the U.S. is the primary example of the modern world, and those two countries were serial global powers, I think there may be more of a correlation than you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Were the ottoman empire, the roman empire, and the chinese empire, also quasi consitutional?
Re: No (Score:1)
Don't forget the rest of the European colonial powers. Portugal, Spain, France being prime examples of big colonial monarchies plus a few smaller ones.
Re: (Score:3)
The success of the Roman Empire was based on the success of the Roman Republic before it, and to a large degree that success was caused by having better laws than surrounding areas. The Republic's laws set up a structure of government conducive to stability and progress. Think of those laws as being similar to a constitution.
Alas, good laws or a good constitution only go so far. Without enough good men to uphold good laws, the corrupt and the power seekers can undermine a great civilization.
Re: No (Score:2)
And here was me, the world plus dog thinking the success of the Roman Empire was to do with crushing any and all neighbouring states. It had the first true military-industrial complex.
Re: (Score:1)
They also had a strong set of rights for all Romans and you could become a Roman by entering into the army. Why would you fight for a cause if you don't get anything out of it? Only when they started chipping away at those rights, did they start collapsing. The Senate was so afraid of Romans carrying weapons near them, they would ban it, after which Caesar marched his troops straight through Rome to the Senate and declared himself Emperor.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, accidentally they were and when they did away with those, they collapsed.
- Roman empire had a lot of similar laws and rights (although primarily for its Roman citizens, not so much for others), the right to vote, the right to do commerce, the right to marry, the right to run for office, the right to have a fair trial in front of a judge, the right (actually duty since you were also a Roman soldier) to bear arms. Once the Senate started chipping away at some of those rights, eg. the right to bear arms i
So what "technology" did Dave Thomas know? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rex Dave Thomas, born in 1932, founder of Wendy's, originally a high school dropout until he got his GED in 1993 when he was 61, was given [osu.edu] an honorary degree in Business Administratoin. To say he understood (*) people is a bit of understatement. How else do you have a Billion dollar burger franchise???
KFC founder, Harland Sanders left his Indiana home at age 13.
Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard.
Steve Jobs dropped out of Reed College.
Felix Kjellberg, aka PewDiePie, dropped [wikipedia.org] out of university in 2011.
Lastly, success in Technology and Constitutional Law will help fuck all for success in your personal relationships.
Maybe the "editor" should try reading success stories [thedailymeal.com] of the past before making bullshit claims.
TL:DR;
Do you NEED a degree to be successful? No.
CAN it help? Yes.
Success is dependent on both Theory (Knowledge) AND Application (Hard Work)
Genius is 1 Percent Inspiration and 99 Percent Perspiration -- Thomas Edison
(*) Interesting trivia. David Thomas also knew Harland Sanders having worked for him:
--
Carrie Lam became China's Bitch when she didn't allow the full draft of the National Security Law to be public until after passing . WTF! Fuck you Xi Pooh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So what "technology" did Dave Thomas know? (Score:2)
I don't know about the others but Bill Gates mom was/is very wealthy and supported him through the early years of Microsoft. He essentially had no risk and was family VC funded.
Something else is necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
The criminal energy to abuse the first and circumvent the latter.
goddamn people are retarded (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also teaches how the government works around a clear set of rules to get more power.
The 3rd amendment seems to be the only part of the Bill of Rights that is actually mostly (depending on how military is defined) followed.
Re: (Score:2)
Systems of access (Score:2)
History is ripe with systems setup to keep people out, and to provide resources to those within it. These are just two systems that unintentionally do the same thing
Nope (Score:2)
Just being good at just technology is only one part of being successful. Constitutional law is nice, but
you need to learn labor and contract law and how it applies to your job. Read your contract, read your employee manuals.
The other advice I'd offer is to always document everything job related, and never, ever accept any verbal orders which could be considered "hinky"/legally questionable and request that those are submitted as written orders.
If they aren't willing to put it in writing, you may wan
Constitutional Law? (Score:2)
Not so much. That might be an interesting subject to study. And demonstrate the breadth of one's learning. But on a daily basis, it's local laws and regulations that will have a much greater effect on the success or failure of one's pursuits. And many of these laws either fall into areas where the Constitution is silent. Or may in fact eventually be found unconstitutional but have not yet risen through the courts to the point where they are tested. If I'm going to engage in some business venture, it is of l
I wish.. (Score:2)
That they'd start all this with a class in Ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish.. That they'd start all this with a class in Ethics.
I wish that more people entering adulthood had some grasp of eithics and/or a moral code.
But having the public schools teach it amounts to having them prescribe a particular code for everyone and propagandize them toward it. Letting the government get involved with that is dreadfully dangerous.
It's also unconstitutional. (See amendment 1.) Which brings us back to TFA's issues on constitutional law.
Teaching the fundamental principles of constution
Re: (Score:2)
No, it depends on having no conscience and a yuuge (Score:2)
The latter being more the result of not understanding. And both being obtainable with cocaine.
Being obsessed, helps too. Like being damaged in a way that drives you beyond what is healthy, just for your career. Like taking cocaine and acting like Frank Underwood.
Sure, I "could" create ridiculously evil products and rio off people with them. Lock-in, imaginary property (monopoly + artificial scarcity), predetermined breaking points, artificially limited repairability, offshore slave workers (Foxconn), onshor
Erratum: ... yuuge EGO. (Score:2)
Goddammit, Slashdot. You could at least tell me where you're cutting off my subject line.
Re: No, it depends on having no conscience and a y (Score:1)
Sure if being a corporate overlord is your version of success than being a sociopath is known to correlate.
I don't know where you got the idea cocaine does. That's an odd statement.
However, I suspect a lot of people right here on /. consider themselves happy and successful but aren't big corporate CEO overlords raping the earth between lines of coke.
Hmm (Score:2)
But I'm a miserable failure. Oh well.
Luck and risk (Score:1)
To be successful you need luck (especially about where you are born). As very few are lucky enough to have fortune knocking on their door (like inheriting a large gold mine company), you also need to take risks.
Luck helps you a lot. With luck and technology skills alone I can live little above average life financially considered. But I am not a risk taker. If I would take risks, I would probably be someone like Elon Musk. I actually had the same idea about paypal but I never took any risks to try to execute
Re: (Score:2)
"Success Is Going from Failure to Failure Without Losing Your Enthusiasm" - Winston Churchill
This is just RI trying to drive down the cost (Score:2)
I didn't really figure it out until my mid-30s after our healthcare system had left me a wreck of a human being after 2 family members got sick in a row and noticed how other folks suffered similarly to me but were unwilling to question the system.
Re: (Score:1)
Answer No! Hard Work will get you an (Score:2)
And if you fail! Do you pick your self up and try again.
In America the only thing stopping you, is you.
Just my 2 cents
Worrisome (Score:2)
I don't like the idea that they think Constitutional Law should be taught by a teacher of government and politics, which seems like an invitation to axe-grinders.
Constitutional Law would be useful in understanding the historical events that brought it about, and understanding the effects it has on the country it structured. The Constitution is a careful attempt at problem solving, fixing some problems and extending others. Knowing how this has played out has value in making your own decisions, both public a
Almost laughable (Score:4, Informative)
As a law student, ah, no. (Score:1)
It may be satisfying to blame those who have zero legal background, while screaming their misunderstandings of the constitution, for their own life choices and lack of success on that same ignorance. The reality is most successful people do not understand the constitution either. And even if they do, where the constitution is most valuable, defending the individual against the state, the system is stacked against you and if your rights are violated overcoming qualified immunity is very, very difficult. T
Talent Stacking (Score:1)
No evidence given (Score:2)
I read the linked articles, plus a Medium piece authored by the person at the College Board who seems to be spearheading this. All the sources assert that computer science and constitutional law are the keys to success, but neither presents a scrap of evidence for them. There's a vague hand-waving "this is how to hack democracy" argument but that's about it. Rationale for studying the Constitution boils down to "the First Amendment is great!" Okay, sure. But why is the rest of it important to an individ