+PCMagstates it best: "Good music that people enjoy has to be worth something."
That's the precise problem with Spotify—it is probably the only music product on the market today that offers an on-demand music library, free-of-charge.
Many have compared Spotify to other streaming services, such as +Pandora. The problem is, by definition, Pandora and Internet radio, designed specifically for discovery, and subscription services, like +Beats Music and +Google Play Music All Access, are based on completely different models. Internet radio provides limited ability to play the exact track on-demand and subscription services are obviously paid services.
Spotify has created users who feel entitled to virtually owning and playing specific music at no charge. For example, I have seen comments, from Spotify users, asserting that Taylor Swift should have her music on Spotify because not everyone has the financial ability to purchase it or how costly it would be to pay for music. I'm not sure when we evolved into a society where content, and other peoples' works, that took valuable skills and insane amounts of time to create, were taken for granted. Or, as +The Telegraphputs it, "we now have an extremely entitled culture, where any kind of art is seen as a communal property." Certainly, not everyone can afford books, movies and even Android devices or iPhones, all various types of content and products that hard-working people create and turn into reality.
In an interview with Yahoo!, Taylor summed up how she felt when she tried releasing new music (Shake It Off) directly on Spotify:
I felt like I was saying to my fans, "If you create music someday, if you create a painting someday, someone can just walk into a museum, take it off the wall, rip off a corner off it, and it's theirs now and they don't have to pay for it." I didn't like the perception that it was putting forth (Taylor Swift).
Taylor Swift performing in Arizona during her RED World Tour.
I have always believed that the Internet should be free and open and that we should create better marketplaces and channels for content to be accessed and distributed at reasonable prices. This should be decided by the equilibrium of supply and demand. This is our best bet against piracy, not distributing content for free or keeping it in exclusive, far-to-reach corners of the web.
A lot of people, especially those that I have had a pleasure of discussing this issue with, believe Taylor is being greedy or selfish. I disagree. She is continually adding to the next generation of the music industry and trying to solve some of the biggest problems it has ever faced. She is standing up for superstars and indie-bands alike, because her position allows her to. It's why various smaller artists have tweeted her, praising her stance against Spotify, calling it "a streaming service that doesn't pay."
Payment in exchange for creative and valuable content is simply so that those same content creators creating all the things we enjoy can continue to innovate and bring us even more quality content. It's the same reason why big-name artists, including Adele, +Coldplay, +Beyoncé and others, have followed the approach of releasing Spotify versions months after their music actually comes out. Unfortunately, smaller artists don't have the ability because they first need their music just out there however and wherever it can be—it's time they should start making money too.
In fact, according to PCMag,
Swift wanted to keep her latest album on delayed-release, or at least only available to Spotify's premium subscribers, which Spotify didn't want; hence the impasse.
I am not saying that streaming services aren't the answer. But, I do not think Spotify and its flawed model, in particular, are the answers we are looking for, both as consumers and content creators—we will get lower quality of content and content creators cannot make a living. The music industry is ripe for innovation, but Spotify does not have the solution.
At the end of the day, Taylor Swift ignited an important conversation about how much we value content and everyone should be happy about that.
There's a quote most often attributed to Thomas Jefferson that says: "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When governments fear the people, there is liberty."
And then, in "The Hunger Games," there's a quote that reads: "Every revolution begins with a spark."
I genuinely believe in these two profound quotes. And that's why today, my thoughts are with the brave peoples of Hong Kong, from students to working professionals, standing up for something they believe in and fighting for a universal right, namely universal suffrage, that we, as humans, should each have. I stand with you. I feel your pain and suffering.
I say peoples, and not people, of Hong Kong because it's a diverse city comprised of so many backgrounds, beliefs, national and ethnic origins, race, religions and sexualities, all of whom are united to defend the freedom that Hong Kong has enjoyed over the past decades. It is precisely this freedom that has allowed Hong Kong to become a cultural, economic and political beacon in the East to so many.
Hong Kong today, September 28, 2014. Courtesy: CNN.
Governments like China cannot endure, at least not in their current form, especially in this new digital age. And a simple spark can lead to something revolutionary. The way governments work is a new game for this next century—people can demand their voices to be heard, more so than ever before and I believe what is right will prevail. Hong Kong has been so prosperous because of the equality and freedom—freedom of assembly, of expression, of information, of the press, of speech—that has existed over the past several decades. I don't think there is anywhere as prepared as Hong Kong to remind us that freedom is truly not free and must be defended daily.
My heart hurts and I am saddened seeing the devastating photos come out of Hong Kong, photos of streets that I have walked on and admired. But it also makes me proud of the citizens of Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, just like as in American cities, these shouldn't be seen as embarrassments, but rather, a functioning civil society able to hold thoughtful conversations and stand up for what they believe in. The government is the entity that should be embarrassed for their oppressive response and for governing without the consent of the governed.
That's why I also think, for me, I find stories like "The Hunger Games" so powerful, because people are living out these scenarios each and every day. It's quite inspirational if you think about it.
CNN and CNN International
—"Fear has been deeply rooted in our genes through the past 65 years. The majority of China's 1.3 billion people are not true citizens; most of the people are simply submissive."
—"You can form political parties in Hong Kong. You can publish books that are forbidden in mainland China. The media can criticize the central government and the chief executive of Hong Kong."
—"Mainland China is a tinderbox that's been physically suppressed by the authorities, and Hong Kong is a seed of fire."
—"The Communist Party is very scared of this tiny bit of land, because if true universal suffrage can blossom in Hong Kong, it is very likely true universal suffrage will end up happening in the mainland."
Today, I received this e-mail from my Macroeconomics Professor at +The George Washington University: "That means that Google glass and similar devices are NOT allowed during assignments..."
I am happy that my Professor is starting this type of conversation about +Google Glass nd new technologies so swiftly and transparently.
Certainly, as an Explorer, these situations where Glass is singled out, are expected, just like +Cecilia Abadie fighting her traffic ticket today (http://goo.gl/UN60mo) or those told to leave restaurants (http://goo.gl/neb8zf). I agree Glass should not be used during exams. Yet, it is utterly irresponsible for those in authority to single new devices like Glass, which functions just as smartphones and tablets do, in this manner. Certainly, this period of testing is where society is educating itself and distinguishing what is real and what is exaggerated by the media, both its features and limitations. For example, having Glass rest on top your head like sunglasses indoors will not enable a student to cheat and is not a qualification of cheating, just like having a phone in your pocket. However, this type of conversation is good to start.
While I don't know if this e-mail is directed to me currently, I do feel the need to share this information clearly and openly. Your feedback, both in agreement or disagreement, is encouraged.
We should embrace technology, especially with the potentials it offers education. More importantly, we should not create hysteria and spread misinformation. Finally, integrity, including in academics, is one of my core values and I believe a society well-educated in not only knowledge but also morals and values will not have these problems.
As C.S. Lewis once said, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”
From this point forward, I am reaffirming my commitment to act with integrity in an ethical and moral manner that takes into account my strict moral discipline, just like I did in 8th grade when I created study guides from public class notes and let information flow freely (allowing others to collaborate, build on top and download those guides at their own discretion) even after one teacher, with a complete opposite view than all the other parents, students and teachers, labeled it as a form of cheating.
You can learn more about my mission statement, vision and values here:
"The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage..."
-Man of Steel
Or does it?
Is there something bigger we want to reach for or is self-interest our basic resting pulse?
-The Newsroom
After my Microeconomics class today, this article ("Does Studying Economics Breed Greed?"by Adam Grant) popped up on my +LinkedIn feed. The article cited studies that showed how Economics was creating students with less values and more greed. Very appropriate. And I completely agree. As interesting as Economics is, I was telling my mom earlier this school year why I think it is fundamentally flawed.
Economics virtually asserts self-interest is 100% responsible for explaining how humans act. And it promotes that sense -- that our world is better when we focus on self-interest and maximizing our own utility. It states that this allows society to be more efficient and have more of everything and more is better. In fact, throughout the years, I have been told that Economics can happen because of "greed," and that it actually makes us all better off.
But I'd like to think that the world doesn't work that way. That there's innate good in each individual. That we can have maximized efficiency while also being moral.
I was also telling my mom the other day that society's focus on economics, the economy, pure dollar signs and percentages, instead of over morals and values, is the exact reason our world economy is where it is today. The reason that 2008, and everything afterwards, happened.
In sports, you can't win a game by merely focusing on "winning." Likewise, you can't fix the economy by only caring about the numbers. In both, it's about the underlying values, whether it's the fundamental skills and teamwork or the sense of instilling morality.
It isn't a greed-less world that we are striving for. Or even one where everyone receives the same resources. Instead, it is one where we can harness greed to truly make the world a better place. It's one where competition, cooperation, ethics, morals and openness are all promoted.
Because we don't want to end up like the people of Krypton.
Yesterday, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) came to a conclusion regarding the +Google antitrust investigation. To be clear, it was not a win for Google or a loss for Microsoft/+FairSearch.org. Instead, the findings of the FTC were a triumphant win for choice, innovation and justice. In summary, the FTC has closed its investigation on Google after approximately 20 months of thoroughly investigating Google's business and found that Google is not an anticompetitive, monopolistic power that brings harms to consumers.
Of course, not everyone is happy, namely Microsoft, perhaps the most outspoken of technology companies to accuse Google of anticompetitive practices. Dave Heiner, Microsoft's Vice President and Deputy General Counsel took to a long blog post to describe why Microsoft is not content with what the FTC has found. He forgets that Microsoft/Bing does some of the same things it accuses Google of doing, and mentions a few points that lack evidence or are incorrect.
Data Portability
Microsoft's Heiner has this to say about "data portability:"
For years Google has publicly championed the virtues of "data portability" - the idea that customers ought to be able to use their own data in products from various companies. But in practice, Google effectively prohibited its primary paying customers (advertisers) from using data about their own advertising campaigns on any ad platform other than Google's.
That, however, is simply untrue. Yes, Google does have a strong belief on data portability, as its Data Liberation Front has shown. Google states that "Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products" and it is one of the only companies to have such a location for easily and quickly exporting data out of Google.
One of the topics in the Data Liberation Front is "AdWords," and shows users how to export any ad campaign. As Google notes, "Advertisers can already export their ad campaigns from Google AdWords." There is even a lovely video to help anyone who does not understand.
Similarly, that is all Microsoft's Bing allows you to do as well, as shown in this help page. There is not even a helpful video to guide the user, or any other option other than CSV. Google also announced yesterday that in response to the FTC, they will voluntarily enable advertisers to "mix and copy ad campaign data within third-party services that use [Google's] AdWords API." So where's the problem here, Microsoft?
Microsoft's Heiner spent two lengthy paragraphs outlining the problem and detailing how Microsoft would have remedied the problem. But wait, Microsoft restricts exports to the same exact thing as Google, and now less than.
Patents
There is also a blurb about "standard essential patents," or those patents that are so essential to standard technological innovations that they should be licensed fairly to everyone. Google, when purchasing Motorola, also continued the ongoing litigation disputes with Microsoft, Apple and others, "seeking to block Microsoft and others from shipping Windows-based PCs and Xboxes that implement the relevant standards," as Heiner notes in the blog.
As we all know, 2012 was the year of patents. The American patent system is severely in need of reform, and Google had to do anything and everything it could to defend itself and the vibrant Android ecosystem. Google has been one of the most outspoken companies regarding patent reform, but what could it do when laws were not changed and the issue not address? Take matters into its own hands and use the patents it did have to the best of its ability.
When Apple can sue Android and other manufacturers on the grounds that pinch-to-zoom uses two fingers or a phone has a rectangular, 4-inch design, Google should be able to do anything and everything it can to protect itself. Microsoft did something similar to Apple, and asked (and continues to ask) manufacturers for extremely high royalties, just because. Google is merely "bleeding out" until the issue is confronted. Yet, the whole story is never disclosed from Microsoft or Apple's perspective. Though those used by Apple and Microsoft may not be "standard essential patents," the relevant patents were basic, and some have even been recalled by the respective patent offices.
YouTube-Windows Phone App
Windows Phone has gotten off to a rough start in the mobile industry dominated by +Android and iOS devices, sheerly because of both platform's robust innovation (and the lack of on Windows Phone). Despite the Microsoft campaigns to criticize Google instead of focusing on the actual Microsoft product, it has continued to use it as an opportunity to out Google as anti-competitive, which is simply not true (and quite obvious).
Windows Phone has one of the lowest market shares in the industry, only in the single-digit area compared to Android and iOS's commanding double-digit lead. For the most up-to-date research, one only needs to enter a simple search query on your preferred search engine. Similarly, the Windows Store of apps only boasts 150,000 applications, compared to Android and iOS's 700,000 count.
As any regular person should know, there are many things that need to get done in life. Each person has to allocate valuable time and resources into the most meaningful activities. Technology companies must do the same thing. That explains why Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter all have no native applications for Windows Phone (except for the Facebook/Twitter apps that Microsoft built).
Yet, Microsoft is painting the absence of the YouTube app as a severe antitrust violation of Google, stating that "Google continues to prevent Microsoft from offering a high-quality YouTube app for Windows Phone." Though a large company, Google still has limited money, resources and time. It must allocate how to build apps and services in a manner that creates a great user experience, allows the most consumers to benefit, while also allowing Google to remain a profitable company (that's how the services continue to operate). Google is not, and should no way be under any obligation to build apps for every single operating system available on the market, or give up its own data so that others can build the app for them - that simply is impossible and unrealistic, as I explain in my Google+ post. Google's goal has always been "to be present on all major platforms and we [Google] want to offer the best possible experience." (Daniel Graf, director of Google Maps for Mobile).
Google also states that YouTube is available on Windows Phone, contrary to Microsoft's statement, via the HTML5-based mobile website, which includes HQ video and all the features that are present in any YouTube app. They also claim they've worked directly with Microsoft to build a great YouTube experience on Windows. In the end, Google does not benefit by excluding users from accessing YouTube anyways, see the linked post.
Search Bias
Heiner also asserts that "Google routinely and systematically heavily promotes its own services in search results." However, the only instances Google does that is when its technology can find a quick answer. As Google states, a "truly great search is all about turning your needs into actions in the blink of an eye." Studies have shown that speed increases satisfaction when it comes to technology, and Google, like any other company, is focused on consumer satisfaction.
Even if that still does not convince you of its effectiveness, Microsoft's Bing and other search engines have implemented what Google has done; they promote their own services, as +Search Engine Land has pointed out in this article (as well as the FTC in their press conference, stating that "Google's search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting that this practice can benefit consumers"). Search Engine Land visualizes what this exactly means.
Search Engine Land continues,
That's [above] a side-by-side comparison I [Search Engine Land] did of how Google (on the left) and Bing (on the right) both 'favor' themselves in various ways... Pick your search, and you can find Bing or Yahoo 'favoring' themselves in all the same ways that Google is accused of.
So Microsoft's point is invalid - it's an industry standard, and is obviously proven to improve the quality of search results for consumers.
But then, Heiner continues his harassment by stating, "Is Google+ really more relevant than Facebook?" Presumably, this is an allusion to Google's inclusion of information from its own properties into its organic search engine, as part of its effort in Universal and social search, also dubbed Search, Plus Your World. That may be a valid point, but really is not valid at all. For one, no one can judge the relevance of a search engine, except for the creator. If the quality of the search engine is poor, users will automatically leave. Any other individual has a biased view on the "relevance" of a search engine. Secondly, the reason Facebook (and Twitter) information are not included in the search results actually links back to Facebook and Twitter themselves. Both (Facebook to a larger degree) are walled gardens and have not given Google explicit permission to be included in the search result, as +Eric Schmidt once explained in this video.
Google commented specifically on Twitter when the microblog criticized Google's "Search, Plus Your World" after their agreement giving Google access to Twitter's public tweets expired. Google stated that they were "a bit surprised by Twitter's comments, because they chose not to renew their agreement with us [Google] last summer... sine then we have observed their rel=nofollow instructions." That is code that prevents search engines from following links, as Mashable details in this article.
As Schmidt and Google have expressed, they'd like and be happy to include information from Facebook and other sites in their universal search engine. That is simply not possible at this time. Google's mission is to "organize the world's information," not to organize information on Google only.
Heiner is not done yet. He continues to try and (unsuccessfully) deal a blow to Google by bringing up shopping, asserting that "Google ranks shopping results (the most important category commercially) in part on the basis of how much advertisers pay Google for placement, after very publicly promising that it would never do so. This does not sound like product improvement."
Wait for it. Microsoft does the exact same thing. Once again, Search Engine Land has an article detailing Microsoft's pure anti-Google campaign, ignoring the fact that it has the same practices. The article goes so far as to say "Bing is hardly in a position to be lecturing Google about poor disclosure and charging for listings, when it has the same issues."
In fact, Microsoft is even more deceptive when it comes to this issue, as Search Engine Land notes.
The key difference is that Google's results have a 'Sponsored' disclaimer over it, one that even expands with more information if you hover over the label (though few likely do this). Bing has no such disclaimer, despite the fact that some of its listings come through merchants paying to appear."
All three accusations of Google biasing search results have seen Microsoft and Bing do the exact same thing, even going so far as to outright copy what Google does. Heiner and Co. should work on gathering the right facts to ensure they don't do the same thing it accuses others of doing it. How can Microsoft say it is immoral if they commit to the same things?
The True Intent of Microsoft and FairSearch
As Earl Warren once said, "The focus of our law is on protecting competition, not competitors." Microsoft, and the rest of FairSearch have tried to use regulators to stop Google's success. Google became an integral part of the Internet because consumers chose to use it, and continue to find it valuable, not because they were forced. Competition is a click away, and the Internet remains the ultimate level playing field.
Ironically, at the time of writing this post, the only comments on the blog from Microsoft's Heiner were those negatively directed at Microsoft, not Google.
Ricardo, on the Microsoft blog had this to say.
I actually didn't know about this whole deal with Google and FTC, and as I read more about it, it became quite blatant that the whole thing was schemed by Microsoft... That's a shady move, wasting government money on a dead end investing just to stifle competition... Anyway, now that I'm aware of your practices, I won't take the bait anymore, and in my company, what has windows already, will stay as it is, and will take a look on what the competition has to offer. You lost a customer today, not by the merit of the competition, but by your practices...
Gaurav states something similar.
Microsoft never did anything useful and stole or bought technology from others. Now you are crying fowl when you agree not capable of innovation. In the long run no one ever won with scheming and cheating. Grow up MS and learn to improve your own products else consumers would just leave you in totality...
Donal McIntyre also comes to the defense of Google.
Google didn't have to modify its practices in search because there was nothing to modify. One thing is to use anti-trust law to protect the public from monopolistic practices and another to protect competitors offering worse products and services. Anti trust is not to protect losing rivals its to protect consumers. ONLY anti-trust may be used to favor competitors if that leads to better products at lower prices. For now Google is offering the best search products at the best prices (zero $).
ReadWriteWeb, on its own article, even called Microsoft's failure to convince antitrust regulators to take action against Google as "the biggest disappointment in Microsoft's history."
After a 19-month investigation and despite much prodding from Microsoft, the Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Google that basically amounts to a slap on the wrist.
This is a crushing blow to Microsoft, which has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and phony grassroots groups over the past several years hoping to land Google in hot water.
Indeed, Microsoft's obsession with Google doesn't just border on crazy. It is crazy, and not just a little tiny bit crazy but full-blown, bunny-boiling, Ahab-versus-the-whale nutso.
...here in the States, the whole campaign is starting to look not just evil but also ridiculous and even pathetic, a failed crusade that smacks of revenge and failure and sad psychodrama.
Perhaps the ending to the article is the best.
Microsoft has spent the past 10 years missing out on every big new trend - search, social, mobile. Instead of looking inward and trying to fix its own problems, Microsoft has become ever more obsessed with Google.
The crusade extends to PR as well. Last year Microsoft hired Mark Penn, the pollster and PR guy who led Hillary Clinton's 2008 train wreck of a campaign. Penn's mission is to create smear campaigns about Google. One of his big brainstorms was the "Scroogled" campaign which tried to persuade people that Google's search results are tainted by advertising... it even created a site, scroogled.com, and urged people to complain about Google on Facebook.
Then came the "Droid Rage" ploy, where Microsoft used its Windows Phone account on Twitter to ask Android users to send in Android malware stories to win a prize. The campaign backfired when Android fans used the hashtag to mock Microsoft.
Going negative might work in politics, but when you're selling products it's probably wiser to tout the virtues of your own product. The risk Microsoft is taking is that by howling about Google, Microsoft starts to look like a company that can no longer compete, a desperate dinosaur that has toppled into a tar pit... Keep up the great work, Microsoft.
That article summarized everything so perfectly there really is nothing else to say.
Google's Statement Regarding the FTC's Findings
Larry and Sergey founded Google because they believed that building a great search experience would improve people's lives. And in the decade-plus that's followed, Google has worked hard to make it quicker and easier for users to find what they need. In the early days you would type in a query, we'd return 10 blue links and you'd have to click on them individually to find what you wanted. Today we can save you the hassle by providing direct answers to your questions, as well as links to other sites. So if you type in [weather in san francisco], or [tom hanks movies], we now give you the answer right from the results page - because truly great search is all about turning your needs into actions in the blink of an eye.
The announcement by the FTC is welcomed, and allows Google to re-focus all of its operations back on the user. Microsoft can continue to attempt portraying Google as an evil company, but consumers will be smarter than to just accept that view. Information is available everywhere now for consumers to research, thanks to the power of your preferred search engine.
American government was built on the basis that the government should interfere with its citizens' lives minimally, allowing for a broader range of freedoms. This has led America to decades of brilliant innovation and economic success. During these times of recession, we cannot solely rely on the government to make things better. Likewise, in the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration did not magically wipe out all the hardships; they only contributed to fixing them. Economies will always have cycles, but ultimately, the government can only do so much. Instead, making our government bigger will only mean a loss of freedom and a worse long-term country.
So why is America not as flawed as she seems? Because economies naturally have their cycles, and competition from other countries only leads to a better world for everyone. Because incentive, a fundmental American ideal, drives people to work hard, allowing more people to achieve the American Dream. Because the American education system actually works, really. Here we go.
Home of the free, and the reason why America has been successful for decades on end.
Competition leads to better nations, and a better world.
The Chinese are great people. Heck, I'm Chinese. However, I still think China's growth is overhyped, overstated and unsustainable. In fact, I think it is artificial. It isn't because of the people, but because of its government. As long as America continues to focus on fixing herself, and not slowing the competition, the future still belongs to her. The only thing the American government needs to do is ensure that America is the number one place to start a business - that starts with having the most economic and personal freedoms. Remember what happened during the Cold War? America continued to be free, focused on extending democratic ideals around the world and launching its own innovative programs, like the space program. In the end, she prevailed while the Soviet Union, which lacked the diverse marketplace America had, collapsed.
Like business, competition can only make things better. If not for the Cold War (competition with the Soviet Union), humans might not even be in space today. We might not have developed so many crazy inventions. And I think the same thing will happen with this tension with China when looking back in hindsight. America will only become greater in the end, that is, if we focus on growing ourselves, and not trying to stop other countries from advancing. America may be in a recession right now. But we have gone through tons of recessions and a Great Depression. We've only gotten stronger.
Incentive drives people to work hard.
We need to stop bagging on the "1%" or promoting the "99%." When did that even become a thing? Focus on the individual. It doesn't matter if it's 1%, 99% or even 50%. America has always been about the American Dream. Those people who have worked hard, figured out a way to move around the obstacles, and achieved success shouldn't be "shunned." Neither should they be scolded when they don't "help out" the poor or don't pay "more" taxes than that set by the government. Certainly, those that do contribute to charity should be thanked and recognized! But imagine a person going to a grocery store, picking up a $5 product, and paying the store $100, just because. If people aren't required to pay that much, don't expect them to or go complaining that they don't pay extra. And, having the rich be obligated to help the poor will only make the poor, poorer. Making it an obligation takes away all incentive for people who aren't in the upper class to work hard to achieve success. Again, this does not mean society should not help out one another - we should educate people to do that, but we cannot reprimand those that do not wish to. It is equally important that we do reprimand those when they breach ethical guidelines (scams), but that is the only reason. Never has America taken the stance that one person is doing bad because the other is doing well. Strive for success, independent of another person's success, or lack thereof.
Maybe American education works.
Education is very important - that's the source of human progress. However, there's also a lot of talk about American education being ranked very low compared to other systems in the world, and that maybe our system is not competent. But maybe, that is what has made Americans so great. Maybe that is what has made Americans succeed in the world. Because it's not all about what we learn in books, but what we experience first-hand in the world, that teaches us even more than pages and words. In other words, American education has never been confined to classrooms, textbooks, pencils and desks. American education has allowed children to explore and discover. Making it more "rigorous" and strictly tied to what we learn in textbooks will remove the ability and time for students to freely look into the things that interest them the most.
Maybe a kid does get a C in English, but at the same time, he may exceed in Chemistry, and so, focuses on that, doing personal research at home, on the Internet, so vast with information. Why should we force them to also succeed in English as well? What makes that A in English so important? That time studying for English may have been time that could have led him to a scientific breakthrough that could have changed the world forever. As long as our curriculums expose students to what's out there in this world, those with an interest in that subject will go out and educate themselves. Our teachers should focus on encouraging that, helping students to develop their passion, and teaching life morals.
For me, I haven't even been able to learn about technology in school, but because I have had personal time, I've been able to do my own research at home. If I had to focus solely on the subjects of school, I'd never have the time to do this. This is the same for so many other areas. Many of our world's greatest innovators have been focused on one area, and many have not been produced because of schooling, but because they've been able to explore their passions.
Consider the following example to China vs. US.
Imagine two children on a playground. One has parents who are constantly hovering, making sure she doesn’t fall and scrape herself. By contrast, the other child’s parents give her more distance, letting her fend for herself. She stumbles and cries more often, but when she becomes an adult, she’s more resilient... In Guo’s view, the helicopter parents are the Chinese government, while the other parents represent Washington. In the end, he said, the U.S. economy will be stronger.
What this whole post ultimately comes down to is individuality. Stop trying to make everything equal. Life is not fair, nothing is equal. Not countries, not people, not education. Some countries will be better than others. Some people will be better than others. Some people will be smarter than others. That's life. The rest is up to the individual.
America is a nation where freedom flourishes, and will continue to in the future, as long as citizens simultaneously stand up to prevent the government from growing in size and participate in the democratic system by voicing their opinions. I still believe in America, do you?
