Education: The Really Long-Term Growth Strategy

This statement about education sounds like a platitude that one would say when they run out of ideas on economic development topics. Investment in education is a no-brainer, risk-free, universally accepted strategy. Everyone can accept it.

But not everyone has the vision and conviction to actually invest into education for a specific purpose, to really achieve a concrete goal. States are now cutting back on education funding, and legislators argue inconclusively about how to improve our supposedly failing education system. We can’t stop hearing about how the U.S. school system is under-performing, that our children are not being educated correctly, and that we are falling behind in science, mathematics, technology. We even hear that our vaunted higher education system is not producing enough engineering, computer programmers and scientists to help us maintain our innovative edge over up-and-coming research superpower like China or India. Yet, for the most part, the discussion hovers around the theoretical, the macroeconomic, policy-making level, and remains distinctly removed from the majority of the society.

It is thus so empowering and admirable that Fred Wilson has lent his support and enthusiasm to solving part of the education quandary in a very specific but potentially tremendous way. I am referring to the Academy for Software Engineering in NYC, recently announced by Mayor Bloomberg, a high school project behind which Wilson and his wife are throwing full support. The school is still very much in developmental phase, with a recently hired head and advisory board, but it represents a bold initiative, an inventive solution and an inspiring hope.

If this works out, it would be a great model for other cities in the U.S. and the world to provide a suitable environment for kids who aspire to learn the skills and mindset of software programming. This is incredibly important, because even as the Information technology has led to tremendous productivity innovation in science and engineering, traditional engineers and scientists are finding that their tasks are being made a lot more efficient with the help of computer software, yet the software itself still requires a huge, highly skilled and highly manual staff (it’s still a lot of typing of code on an editor) of computer engineers. And that is the heart of our massive lack of good software programmers – there is not just enough of them to build all the software that we can think of.

By investing in education, Wilson is investing for the really long term, investing in the far future to build a competitive edge of resources and talent for NYC for years to come. It is also admirable because this is going to involve many parties, requiring a lot of dedication in monitoring and coordinating the stakeholders, and is still a very risky project.

I remember going to a wonderful high school in Singapore and specializing in computer science, physics and mathematics in the equivalent of junior and senior year in the U.S. I would have computer programming class almost everyday for two years, and really got a chance to whet my appetite in programming in multiple languages, learning about the ins and outs of stacks and queues, linked and doubly linked lists, constructing mini applications, learning about the software development cycle (unfortunately, we didn’t get to learn the Agile Methodology, it being still new back then) etc. The reason for this is that Singapore’s education system was very conscious of the needs to impart engineering skills early (to those who want to learn it), and provided the right support and environment for that learning, so that it can provide the best engineering and technology talent to its economy.

 

I think each city should think about its competitive advantage and resource requirements in the same way, and learn from the experiment at the AFSE in New York. Boston, for example, will also benefit from such a center, and I would be glad to support such an endeavor.