In a typical year, research at the University of Washington will spawn about a dozen promising young companies. In the next three years, the school’s new president wants to see that output double—and ground zero for a lot of those startups will likely be a new incubator space unveiled this week.

When renovations are complete, the UW’s New Ventures Facility will have space for about 25 startups, with some 23,000 square feet of space split roughly evenly between laboratories and offices.

The initial floor of office space is finished now, and the first startups are expected to begin stocking its cubicles and conference rooms in the coming weeks. Renovation of lab space will take a little longer—it’s expected to be finished in 2014.

UW officials aren’t waiting to start trumpeting what they say is another big step toward dramatically increasing the entrepreneurial output of the state’s largest higher education center. It coincides with efforts like the new W Fund, an early stage investment pool pegged at about $25 million that will concentrate on companies emerging from public universities in the state.

Young

Michael Young, the UW’s president, said the incubator on UW’s campus should help keep young companies and entrepreneurs in Washington by making sure they don’t have to hit the streets too early, where they might find a need to relocate to Silicon Valley.

“When businesses spin too quickly out of their university geography, the reasons for staying in the state begin to reduce, and all of the sudden sunny climates and higher degrees of venture capital and so forth begin to appeal,” Young said Wednesday. “And that is despite the fact that the real value-add is staying connected with the university for some period of time until it really has proved its worth, and has shown what that market niche is, and has developed that technology that truly is significant and truly is transformative.”

Rhoads

Young speaks from experience, having helped the University of Utah become a national leader in spinning out university research. Linden Rhoads, head of the UW’s Center for Commercialization, said Young’s “assignment” of doubling the school’s startup output will also focus on quality—”not just companies, but successful, thriving companies that will be a benefit to the community and a credit to the university. So really, we look at the applicants with that assigment in mind.”

Startups have to apply for the incubator, and once they’re in, will pay to rent spaces—a typical office setup would be about $220 per month, with a one-year contract. The incubator already has seven startups ready to move in, and is expecting a handful more to join the parade soon.

One of those companies is Envitrum, a startup founded by mechanical engineering students Grant L.S. Marchelli and Renuka Prabhakar. Envitrum turns waste glass that is too dirty to be recycled into bricks that can be used in finish construction, namely building facades. The bricks that Envitrum produces are 95 percent glass, but consume a third less energy to produce than typical construction bricks, while also showing that they’re stronger in tests, Prahakar said.

Envitrum is about two years old, and presently operating on grant funding. ”It’s this great green technology. But the question is, how do we actually make the other type of green?” said Ryan Buckmaster, who’s working with Envitrum through the Center for Commercialization.

As the New Ventures building fills up, that’s the kind of question that people should be asking a lot more often in the next few years.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

When the University of Washington hired Michael Young to be its new president last year, one qualification that stood out was an impressive record of spinning out companies from his previous employer, the University of Utah.

Today, the UW is taking a step toward fulfilling some of that promise by opening its New Ventures Facility, an incubator offering lab and office space for startups based on the school’s research. The incubator will be run by the university’s Center for Commercialization, which recently topped off a $25 million fund for spinning out public university research.

Tech startup incubators have been erupting across the American business landscape in the past few years, as faster, cheaper, more powerful software and hardware makes it very inexpensive to start a new company and investors look for ways to place broader bets on a crop of entrepreneurs. Seattle has a branch of the prominent TechStars program, which is also partnering with Microsoft to organize a separate accelerator program for startups working on the Kinect motion and sound sensor.

The UW plans to talk in detail about the New Ventures incubator at a launch event later today, and I’ll update with more color from the scene. It promises to be a bright spot for the university amid an era of steep cutbacks in money from the state, which is still struggling with lax tax collections following the Great Recession. Tuition has already increased to compensate for less state money, and the UW is likely to soon start charging different prices for in-demand majors for the first time.

UW’s commercialization efforts already have seen several spinouts in life sciences and information technology, including notable names like Fate Therapeutics and Farecast, now part of Bing’s travel search. The Center for Commercialization also has a strong collection of entrepreneurs-in-residence, with folks like Ken Myer and Luni Libes on the roster.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

New York is known as the home to some of the world’s biggest education publishers, such as Pearson and McGraw-Hill. Even Apple came to New York to make its big iPad textbook announcement two weeks ago. But what’s not as well known is that the city is also teeming with education technology startups—companies leveraging the Web, the cloud, social media, and other tools to help people keep learning even outside the classroom. The founders of two of those startups, Examville and Coursekit, gave me a peek into their notebooks for a look at the technologies they’re offering to help connect students with educational content and services.

Both companies are growing—Coursekit in particular expects to more than quadruple its staff this year—and they’ll be getting even more company if an education-focused Startup Weekend event this weekend comes off as planned. Sponsored by San Francisco-based test prep startup Grockit, the intense event at the Mandell School on the Upper West Side is designed to help teams build a credible Web or mobile app for education in just 54 hours.

The demand for new ways to access educational content is only growing, says Examville’s founder and CEO Nilanjan Sen. Education is approaching a moment of disruption and fragmentation comparable to the one Apple’s iPod and iTunes caused in the music industry, he says. “In the 1970s you had to buy a whole album when you really wanted one song,” he says. “Most people don’t need help with everything [in education].”

Examville is a Web-based marketplace that aggregates and sells digitized material from educators, textbook publishers such as Milliken Publishing, and other students. Examville’s website offers live online classes, tutor searching, video lectures, e-books, study guides, and practice versions of standardized tests such as the LSAT and GMAT. The content is geared for elementary school through higher education students. Examville takes a cut from the fees charged when users pay for certain content and services, though some material is also available free. Sen says his company is generating revenue, and he is also exploring a Series A funding round, which would help the company hire more engineering and marketing staff ideally in the next six months. Examville currently has a staff of seven regular employees augmented by additional personnel as needed.

Sen worked in the education industry as a course developer and test preparation instructor for companies such as Kaplan and The Princeton Review before founding his previous company, Test Prep International, in 1997. With the evolution of the Web, Sen saw an opportunity to shift his business to an online platform, and started … Next Page »

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

There’s a new player in the seed-stage investment game in Boston. As of this week, the Experiment Fund is open for business at Harvard University, backed by the Silicon Valley venture firm New Enterprise Associates (NEA). The startup investment fund is being hosted by Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences in Cambridge, MA.

The new fund is led by Hugo Van Vuuren (see photo above), a Harvard graduate student and entrepreneur, and two venture capitalists from NEA, Patrick Chung and Harry Weller (both Harvard alums). David Edwards, a Harvard professor of biomedical engineering, serves as an advisor to the fund. Van Vuuren and NEA did not respond to requests for comment in time for this article.

The basic structure of the Experiment Fund is that selected startups—mostly student-led teams from Cambridge—will receive up to $250,000 in seed funding over the next two years, presumably in exchange for a sizable equity stake in the companies. The fund is based out of Harvard but says it will operate independently of the university and will look at teams from other local schools—and, more broadly, from the East Coast. The sectors targeted are pretty broad as well; they include information technology, healthcare, and energy.

No word yet on the size of the fund or how many companies it will invest in. But Van Vuuren, a recent fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said in a press release that he and his partners are looking for “smart and resourceful people, zealous full-time teams, and experiments in need of seed funding and hands-on help to get off the ground.”

Not to beat a dead Zuckerberg, but the overarching goal here is to keep the next Facebook in Boston—and, preferably, affiliated with Harvard. “It’s continued growth of the ecosystem for Harvard and beyond,” says Gordon Jones, director of the Harvard Innovation Lab, which is collaborating with the Experiment Fund to provide office space and resources, but is separate from the new fund. Jones calls the Experiment Fund “extremely complementary” to the i-Lab.

One of the first Harvard teams to receive an investment from … Next Page »

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

I don’t think there’s ever been a textbook that made it this easy to be a good student. —Roger Rosner, vice president of productivity applications, Apple

Whenever a company as powerful as Apple, Facebook, or Google announces a big new product push, it evokes wonder and acclaim from some observers, head-scratching and horror from others, and the usual FUD from competitors. So I wasn’t surprised when Apple’s press event last week at the Guggenheim Museum—where it said it will sell low-priced iPad textbooks to high-schoolers through its iBooks store and give away the software needed to make them—was followed by a flood of criticism. But I was definitely impressed by the range and vehemence of the objections. I’ve spent part of this week trying to figure out where all the discomfort is coming from.

Here are a few of the reasons Apple’s textbook plans are doomed, misconceived, or just plain evil, in the eyes of the blogosphere:

A page from E.O. Wilson's "Life on Earth" for the iPad

This is all about one media giant trying to grab market share from other media giants. Education publishing is the most profitable part of the book business these days—maybe the only profitable part. So experiments with digital publishing have been cautious, and hampered by the lack of a great delivery device. Apple thinks it can hasten the technological transition, just as it did with music on the iPod, and grab a big slice of the profits in the process. The only difference this time around, say some observers, is that giants like Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson have decided to join ‘em rather than fight ‘em.

This is all about selling iPads. This point of criticism has two variants. The first says Apple’s textbook push will fail because it’s insincere: the company really just wants to hook teenagers on Apple hardware, so they’ll buy the iPad 7 (with direct neural interface!) when they grow up. The second says it will fail because iPads are too expensive: schools can’t afford to supply every kid with a $499 gadget that they’ll probably just break, lose, or misuse.

Schools will never buy e-textbooks if they can’t own them. Apple’s textbook program is dead in the water because the company wants schools to purchase books using “volume vouchers.” The vouchers would come with codes that students can redeem in the iBooks store; the textbooks would then be placed into the students’ personal iTunes accounts. The objection here is that schools won’t be able to grok the accounting math or the concept that the books will actually belong to the students, rather than being passed along from year to year.

Authors will never write textbooks for iBooks if they can’t sell them elsewhere. The biggest post-announcement hullabaloo has been over the terms of the end user license agreement for iBooks Author, the free program Apple built to help authors, publishers, and teachers create their own multimedia textbooks. Under the agreement, iBooks Author users who want to give away their textbooks free can do so by any means they like, but those who want to sell their books for profit may only do so through the iBooks store, where Apple gets its usual 30 percent cut. That might seem like simple business logic—there’s no reason Apple should help authors create content for competing platforms like Amazon’s Kindle. But critics screamed bloody murder about the provision, saying that it was like Microsoft taking a cut for every novel written using Word.

Nothing new here—iBooks textbooks are an inferior ripoff of existing technologies. Apple is obviously late to the consumer e-book party, where Amazon still has a commanding lead. The criticism here is that Apple, despite its boastful press releases last week, hasn’t really reinvented anything about e-textbooks. Companies like Inkling, Kno, Chegg, Vook, Flatworld Knowledge, and Cengage Learning already offer systems for creating and publishing multimedia textbooks, and most of these books work on multiple platforms, not just the iPad.

Apple is trying to kill open e-book publishing standards. Ahh, standards. Few debates are as bitter, partisan, and unending—it’s the tech world’s version of “The Blue and the Gray.” Apple is an ongoing supporter of the open ePub format. Books using this format work on devices from a variety of manufacturers (one exception being Amazon, but that’s another story). But critics are incensed that e-textbooks created using iBooks Author are … Next Page »

Comments (4) | Reprints | Share:          

Boston has no place for “serious, venture-backed startups” to grow from five employees to 25 employees, akin to San Francisco’s RocketSpace, or New York City’s General Assembly, says Mark Kasdorf.

Enter Intrepid Labs, the co-working space he recently established in the former digs of another co-working space (Dogpatch Labs) at 222 Third Street near Kendall Square in Cambridge, MA.

Intrepid Labs comes as the answer to a problem Kasdorf himself was facing. His mobile development company Intrepid Pursuits started with three people in the co-working unit (C3) of the Cambridge Innovation Center around the spring of 2010. It grew pretty quickly to eight people, so was kicked out of the C3. The building gave them an attractive “transition” rate to move into the more grownup office space, says Kasdorf, but they outgrew that, too, hitting about 15 employees last fall.

“We had to get real office space, which was more expensive than we could afford as a bootstrapped consulting company,” Kasdorf says. “As we started digging into commercial real estate, we realized how bad it is for startups.”

The Boston area has its share of coffeehouse-style co-working spaces for pre-seed companies with a few employees, but nothing for the more mature (revenues, funded, five employees and up) crowd, says Kasdorf. Traditional office spaces require three-year leases, a time period in which a lot could change for a startup, says Kasdorf. They also require companies to get their own furniture, printers and scanner, and the like. “This whole litany of things that CIC had been offering to us became obvious, but it was still really expensive,” Kasdorf says

In October he started checking out other office space in The American Twine Office Park at 222 Third Street, and saw the vacant fourth floor. “We walk in here and I’m blown away,” he says. “Everything about it screams, ‘This would be a fun place to work.’”

Inspired by General Assembly, he signed a lease for three years, with the intent of creating a co-working space for growing startups like his. Kasdorf and his team moved in during November. While Intrepid Labs has the long lease it originally wanted to avoid, it’s subletting to other startups on a month-to-month basis. So what about that big expense? Kasdorf says it is pre-paying some of the rent, while the “landlord has taken a real interest in what we’re doing and is really flexible with us.”

For startup tenants, a dedicated desk costs … Next Page »

Comments (2) | Reprints | Share:          

There is hardly a more important topic to society than the future education. So I’m really looking forward to hosting a Tweetchat later today on education and the future. My guest will be John Seely Brown (@jseelybrown), the technology visionary who previously served as chief scientist of Xerox and also director of Xerox PARC, the legendary computer research lab where so much of modern personal computing was conceived and/or brought to life.

The Tweetchat, sponsored by Babson College (@babson) and AMA enterprises is (@AMAnet), will take place from 2-2:30pm EST today. I will be tweeting through my personal account @bbuderi and @xconomy. The hashtag where you can follow the action and send your questions for JSB is #XCed.

Brown, commonly known as JSB, is now retired from Xerox and a visiting scholar at USC, and still very much a technology visionary—and what it means for society. He also knows a lot about education and learning—and was one of the prime contributors to our just-released Xconomist Report on the Future of Education, in which 22 leading thinkers on innovation answered the question: What should students be studying now to prepare for 10 years from now?

JSB’s litany of accomplishments relating to education include being a cofounder of the Institute for Research on Learning, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the National Academy of Education, a Fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence and of AAAS and a Trustee of the MacArthur Foundation. He is also the co-author of a book published early last year called A New Culture of Learning, which looks at the future of learning.

All of which to say is he is a great person to take part in a tweet chat on this critical subject. Again, the chat takes place at 2pm EST. And the hashtag for following the chat is #XCed.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

Yesterday Bob told you about a special report we put together by canvassing the Xconomists—some of the world’s leading innovators, entrepreneurs, and investors—for their thoughts on what students should study to be prepared for the future.

Well, the report is now live, here, with 22 thought-provoking responses. Computing, the scientific method, culture, Chinese, and how to start something are among the areas Xconomists think students can learn to be prepared for a rapidly evolving economy. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, so be sure to delve into the full report to see what innovators like Vinod Khosla, David Baltimore, Lisa Suennen, Robert Langer, and Desh Deshpande have to say on the subject.

And we’d like you to chime in, so please share your answer to the question: What should students be studying now to prepare for 10 years from now?

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

Two trends are driving the current job market: globalization, where everybody is becoming part of the economy, and innovation, which increases productivity and allows fewer people to do the same jobs. These two trends will not slow down during the next few decades. How should students train in college to build careers under these conditions?

The situation is similar to 150 years ago, when 98 perecent of people farmed. Now we need only 2 percent of the population to look after the farms. The other 96 percent are engaged in businesses that did not exist 150 years ago. Similarly, the globalization of the workforce and the concurrent productivity gains will take care of people’s current needs. New graduates over the next decades will be part of businesses that don’t exist today.

What are these new businesses? We know that the world faces several big challenges such as energy, sustainability, poverty, education and healthcare. We need to solve these problems, but no one is sure how they will lead to specific businesses. This is the challenge and the opportunity for new graduates.

New graduates who want to be players in the new economy will need a strong work ethic, rigor in their thought process, and entrepreneurial energy. In the old economy, individuals mastered a specific skill and practiced it over the course of a 50-year career. In the next 50 years, new graduates will probably change their field of practice every 10 years. They need a good work ethic to be able to learn new things. They need rigor in their thought process to learn to learn. They need to be flexible and be entrepreneurial to adapt to new businesses.

No matter what students study, whether it is technology, journalism, art, medicine, business, or law, they will have to be entrepreneurial to survive and prosper in the next 50 years. In universities they learn to solve problems. In addition to solving problems posed by others, students need to learn how to pick problems that they are passionate about solving. A big part of being an entrepreneur is to learn to pick problems that you want to solve.

I am a big believer that students should create experiential learning opportunities during their university years. They should treat the whole world and its problems as their laboratory, as opposed to confining themselves to their campuses. Picking a problem that they feel passionate about and finding a way to solve it builds confidence and gives students a taste of taking charge. New graduates have to be entrepreneurial and innovative in creating opportunities for themselves as opposed to waiting for others to do it for them.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

My pat answer is mathematics (the universal language), biology (in order to master non-linear, dynamic thinking especially related to complex systems and ecosystemic issues) and Chinese (since in 10 years Chinese will be even more important than it is today in both the commercial and scientific domains).

But let’s peek around the corner. Both design and the arts are going to become increasingly important. Why? First we must crack the problems of our lives being flooded by junk. We need to better understand the design ethos of ‘elegant minimalism’ and then we need to master the art of the sketch where hand and mind merge to expand our imagination. Imagination will soon count more than creativity, if it doesn’t already, because there is no deep reason to be creative if we can’t first imagine new worlds to create or enact.

But in addition, as complexity increases, our ability to communicate the complex in simple, authentic terms will become increasingly important in order to mobilize collective action. The ability to create sketches or other forms of visualization that evoke understanding and help coordinate action will be priceless.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

If luck favors the prepared mind, as Louis Pasteur is credited with saying, we’re in danger of becoming a very unlucky nation. Little of the material taught in schools today is relevant to the future. Consider all the science and economics that has been updated, the shifting theories of psychology, the programming languages, political theories, and even how many planets our solar system has. Much, like literature and history, should be evaluated against updated, relevant priorities in the 21st century. So, what can we “teach” our students to prepare them for the future?

1. The fundamental tools of learning and analysis, as well as basic concepts

2. Knowledge of a few generally applicable topics

3. The skills to “dig deep” into their areas of interest in order to understand how these tools can be applied to one domain and to be equipped to change domains every so often

4. Preparation for jobs in a competitive and evolving global economy

5. Preparation to continuously evolve and stay current as informed and intelligent citizens of a democracy

To me, the fundamental tools of learning stem (no pun intended) from science, technology, engineering, and math. This updated curriculum should eclipse the archaic view of liberal education still favored by institutions like Harvard and Yale based on a worldview from the 1800s. Critical subject matter should include economics, statistics, mathematics, logic and systems modeling, current (not historical) cultural evolution, psychology, and computer programming. Furthermore, certain humanities disciplines such as literature and history should become optional subjects, in much the same way as physics is today (and, of course, I advocate mandatory physics study).

Finally, English and social studies should be replaced with the scientific process, critical thinking, rhetoric, and analysis of current news—imagine a required course each semester where every student is asked to analyze and debate topics from every issue of a broad publication such as The Economist, Scientific American, or Technology Review. Such a curriculum would not only provide a platform for understanding in a more relevant context how the physical, political, cultural and technical worlds function, but would also impart instincts for interpreting the world, and prepare students to become active participants in the economy. After all, what is the job of education?

Should we teach our students what we already know, or prepare them to discover more? Memorizing the Gettysburg address is admirable but ultimately worthless; understanding history is interesting, but not as relevant as topics from the Economist; a student who can apply the scientific process or employ critical thinking skills to solve a big problem has the potential to change the world or at least get a better-paying job. No wonder half the college graduates who fill jobs actually fill jobs that don’t need a college degree! Their degree is not relevant to adding value to an employer. Often, in my view, it is even less relevant to being an intelligent voter in a democratic economy. Most graduates cannot read the Economist and separate “facts,” “assumptions by the writer,” “biases,” “projections,” or “conclusions and their validity” in a critical way.

I’d also suggest tackling several general and currently relevant topic areas such as genetics, computer science, systems modeling, econometrics, linguistics modeling, traditional and behavioral economics, and bioinformatics (not an exhaustive list). Not only do these topics expose students to a lot of useful and current information, theories, and algorithms, they may in fact become platforms to teach the scientific process—a process that applies to (and is desperately needed for) logical discourse as much as it applies to science, and of much future learning in general. Even if the specific information becomes irrelevant within a decade (who knows where technology will head next; Facebook, Twitter, and the iPhone didn’t exist in 2004, after all), it’s incredibly useful to understand the current frontiers of science and technology as building blocks for the future, more so than understanding history or Kafka.

If we had enough time in school, I would suggest we do everything. Sadly that is not realistic, so we need a prioritized list of basic requirements because every subject we do cover excludes some other subject given the fixed time we have available. We must decide what is better taught during the limited teaching time we have, and what subjects are easier learnt during personal time or as post-education pursuits. For instance, passions like music and its history may be best left to self-pursuit, while exploring the structure and theory of music may be a way to teach critical tools!

For some small subset of the student body, pursuing passions and developing skills in subjects such as music or sports can be valuable, and I am a fan of schools like Juilliard, but in my view this must be in addition to a required general education. It’s the lack of balance in general education which I am suggesting needs to be addressed. Setting music and sports aside, with the critical thinking tools and exposure to the up-and-coming areas mentioned above, students should be positioned to discover their first passion and begin to understand themselves, or at the least be able to keep up with the changes to come, get (and maintain) productive jobs, and be intelligent citizens.

After grasping the fundamental tools of learning and some broad topical exposure, it’s valuable to “dig deep” in one or two topic areas of interest. For this, I prefer some subject in science or engineering rather than literature or history (bear with me; I’ll explain in a minute). Obviously, it’s best if students are passionate about a specific topic, but it’s not critical as the passion may develop as they dig in (some students will have passions, but many won’t have any at all). The real value for digging deep is to learn how to dig in; it serves a person for the duration of their life: in school, work, and leisure.

If students choose options from traditional liberal-education subjects, they should be taught in the context of the critical tools mentioned above. If students want jobs, they should be taught skills where future jobs will exist. If we want them as intelligent citizens, we need to have them understand critical thinking, statistics, economics, how to interpret technology and science developments, and how global game theory applies to local interests. Traditional international relations and political science are passé as base skills and can easily be acquired once a student has the basic tools of understanding.

Back to history and literature for a moment; these are great to wrestle with once a student has learned to think critically. My contention is not that these subjects are unimportant, but rather that they are not basic or broad enough “tools for developing learning skills” as they were in the 1800s, because the set of skills needed today has changed. Furthermore, they are topics easily learned by someone trained in the basic disciplines of thinking and learning that I’ve defined above: this isn’t as easy the other way around. A scientist can more easily become a philosopher or writer than a writer can become a scientist.

Besides, physics is a much more important tool to understand the science and technology that drives modern life than history is, not to mention that it’s far more useful in helping someone understand how her car or refrigerator works. This makes it all the more concerning that many states don’t require physics to graduate from high school but do require many years of history classes—a lopsided and poor use of student time. University education continues this tradition, especially as students flock to the “easier/less work” courses. If subjects like history and literature are focused on too early, it is easy for someone not to learn to think for themselves and not to question assumptions, conclusions, and expert philosophies—this can actually do a lot of damage. On the other hand, with the right critical lens, history, philosophy, and literature can help creativity and breadth by opening the mind to new perspectives and ideas. Still, learning about them is secondary to learning the tools of learning.

In the end, school is a place where every kid should have the opportunity to become a potential participant in whatever they might want to tackle in the future, with an appropriate focus not only on what they want to pursue but also, pragmatically, what they will need to do to be productively employed. By embracing thinking and learning skills, and adding a dash of irreverence and confidence that comes from being able to tackle new arenas (creative writing may have a role here, but Jane Austen does not make my priority list), hopefully they will be lucky enough to help shape the next few decades or at least be intelligent voters in a democracy and productive participants in their jobs. At the very least they should be able to evaluate how much confidence to place in a New York Times study of 11 patients on a new cancer treatment from Mexico or a health supplement from China and to assess the study’s statistical validity and whether the treatment’s economics make sense. And they should understand the relationship between taxes, spending, balanced budgets, and growth better than they understand 15th century English history.

Comments (5) | Reprints | Share:          

More than anything, they should be studying math, including statistics and probability, and programming. No matter what the subject, we will have huge amounts of data about it, and will need these tools to get meaning from the data. The areas I’m thinking of include medicine, genetics, nutrition, and neuroscience; human behavior; energy management and consumption; materials science (so that we can use our personal 3D printers more effectively); aerospace and cosmology (so we can find asteroids, whether to deflect them from an earth-bound path, to mine them of valuable minerals or terraform them for human habitation); and of course biology, so that we can enjoy the company of animals, grow food, and ultimately create human-friendly living conditions on other planets and asteroids. It would also be great to get better at modeling and managing economic fluctuations!

But in the meantime, don’t forget to read world literature so you can understand your place in history and know how to be a human being.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

The world is only going to become more technological and more global in the next decade. Students should be getting a solid enough grounding in mathematics, probabilistic thinking, physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering that they understand these ways of thinking and the values of these fields. They also need a liberal arts grounding and, particularly, well developed verbal and writing skills.

Finally, they need enough experience with the rest of the world that they are comfortable interacting with people who come from different cultures and in foreign venues. A foreign language is often a very valuable asset and for people who have backgrounds in multiple cultures—learning the languages of their parents can be an extremely effective preparation for a global career.

Comments (1) | Reprints | Share:          

The impact of information-based technologies will continue to grow—probably at an accelerating rate. In nearly every segment of society, we see both quality and productivity improvements because of increased use of automation and digital communication. The impact is obviously huge in some sectors such as finance and publishing. And it will only grow in the laggards, such as education and healthcare, despite the immense challenges due to inertia, privacy, and access.

There will be great change in smaller areas also. I was just reading a journal on digital archaeology, to which I hadn’t previously given much thought, and I was astounded by the role information technology can play. As another somewhat less common application of information technology, Google has sponsored significant Research in the Digital Humanities (using statistical data from our large Books corpus), with the promise of proving entirely new research paradigms. (See Culturomics 2.0 for more.) Finally, the mobile application stores are filled with a surprising variety of applications in a variety of domains, where we might not have thought information technology could play a role.

So, this leads to a natural implication for students: Make sure you deeply understand information technology. This doesn’t mean just understanding how to use a search engine or a word processor. It doesn’t mean that you have spent years playing computer games or using social networks. It means instead developing an understanding of the basics of computer science (which includes at least some programming in a programming language of your choice). It means also that, that no matter what your field of study, you should focus on learning where computer science will hybridize with it to produce great progress. For many years, I’ve argued that the action in most disciplines, X, will be at the front line where computer science meets that discipline: In short-hand CS + X, for all X.

For at least another 50 years, the greatest intellectual challenges and economic value will arise from the hybridization of disciplines. So, by all means follow your passions: study biology, philosophy, medicine, education, economics, music, etc. But combine that study with a healthy portion of computer science.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

First of all, students should be studying what they are passionate about. Clearly, computer science will continue to spread into all aspects of human life. Within computer science, I believe machine learning and AI are perhaps the biggest study opportunity today. Biology and medicine are also undergoing vast changes. Personalized medicine will become a big issue; the understanding of the human genome and cell chemistry will open up entire new opportunities for innovation. So any study in the area of life sciences that connects to those new opportunities will be important. The will be amazing bioengineering opportunities, e.g., by developing materials and systems that connect with human tissue. Nanotechnology will become a major driver of new technologies in the future, with tons of great things to study at the intersection of new materials and human life.

I also believe some of the mundane aspects are ripe for overhaul, such as transportation and manufacturing. Studying robotics, rapid prototyping, autonomy in fields such as Aero-Astro, mechanical engineering, or computer science, should position students today to become the technology leaders of tomorrow. For students studying in humanities, I urge them to connect to the digital revolution that is unfolding right now. I am less excited about studying finance, since too many of us are already too creative in inventing new financial instruments that make society less stable.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

The Who once sang, “I hope I die before I get old.” Despite their best efforts to exit the planet early, most of them didn’t. They and their fellow Baby Boomers represent the greatest technology and business opportunity of the 21st Century.

It is typical for each of us to be drawn to areas for which we feel the most affinity. For that reason, most students looking forward see themselves surrounded by people of a similar age while they conjure up products and services attractive to their peers. I teach an MBA class at the Haas School at U.C. Berkeley and so many of the students have great ideas on how to innovate in areas deeply relevant to their day-to-day worlds. The problem is: that is not where the action is. If you are a student today preparing to be the Steve Jobs or Oprah of the next generation, you should be thinking a lot more about what your parents and grandparents need than what would interest your friends.

There are approximately 76 million baby boomers (people born during the years 1945 and 1964). The first of the boomers turns 65 years old in 2011 at a rate of approximately 10,000 people per day, and that trend will continue for the next 20 years. According to the Census Bureau, an estimated 72 million people, or 19.3 percent of the population, will be 65 and older by 2030, compared with 40 million, or 13 percent last year. By 2030, people aged 18 to 24 will represent 9.1 percent of the population, down from 9.9 percent in 2010, according to the Census Bureau. The share of people aged 25 to 44 will drop to 25.5 percent from 26.8 percent. Young people: it is time to start thinking old-you are outnumbered. The best thing you could possibly study is how to conceive of technologies, products, and services that would appeal to the aging demographic—that is where the spending and trending power will reside. “No other force is likely to shape the future of national economic health, public finances and policy making,” analysts at Standard & Poor’s wrote in a recent report, “as the irreversible rate at which the world’s population is aging.”

According to various reports, Boomers already control over 80 percent of personal financial assets and more than 50 percent of U.S. discretionary spending power. A MetLife study shows Boomers stand to inherit over $11.6 trillion in their lifetime in addition to the incomes they make, and the vast majority of Boomers expect to work through their retirement. Boomers already comprise over half of all consumer spending and yes, while they account for over 75 percent of all purchases of prescription drugs and a whole lot of chronic illness (itself a stunningly large business opportunity), they also account for about 80 percent of all travel purchases.

For those of you who think of the Boomers as old and out of touch, note that retirees age 65 and older are the fastest-growing group of social networking site users, according to the Pew Research Center, which adds that over half of baby boomers use social networking sites. If you think that the latest and greatest technology doesn’t apply to the older crowd, you are wrong. New technology is essential to finding ways for Boomers to maintain their vibrancy and independence, as well as ways for us to reduce the skyrocketing costs in our current healthcare system, something that all economists agree is essential to maintaining our national economic viability.

Accordingly, students today would be best served by studying the fields that swirl around and intersect with the fields of gerontology and geriatrics. This means everything from the study of aging in medicine to the study of architecture, engineering and finance as it applies to the Boomer opportunity.

The future of caring for older Americans lays in technology, with vast green field opportunities available in the design of technologies and services that enable extending health and psychiatric well-being. Just one area, Alzheimers’, today costs the U.S. $172 billion annually; by 2020 this cost will be $2 trillion and by 2050, $20 trillion according to recent reports, and that is just one disease that needs innovation, both in treatment and in patient management.

Beyond healthcare, there is a screaming demand for technologies that ensure mobility, enable physical and financial autonomy, provide for social connectivity, and deliver education and work-place skills to those who are looking to their second or third career. People of a certain age don’t want and often can’t use the same products and services that appeal to the young, but also don’t want to buy things that make them feel old. Striking that balance is the innovation opportunity of the next several decades.

Comments (2) | Reprints | Share:          

I think learning the fundamentals of a discipline is the most important thing that students can do to prepare themselves for jobs both today and tomorrow. That discipline may be biology, bioengineering, chemistry, chemical engineering or others. I also think doing research is great preparatory experience. Furthermore, I believe the opportunities offered by the convergence between biology, medicine, and engineering are rapidly increasing.

Thus, courses and research at this interface may be increasingly attractive. At MIT, for example, training at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research or the Broad Institute or the Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology Program may be very helpful. At many universities, there are also special programs or activities that students can be involved in that may be useful. At MIT such programs include the $100K business plan competition. At Stanford they have a Biodesign Program. Finally, summer jobs in companies involved in biotech or pharma or medical devices can offer great experiences.

Comments (1) | Reprints | Share:          

My initial response to this question was, “Chinese!” I was only half joking. English is the most popular second language in the world and in our increasingly connected world, the people who have an understanding of other languages—particularly Chinese—will be better equipped.

As far as computers go, I studied computer languages in school and even though I wish I had studied different “human” languages, I think understanding computer languages will become even more important in the future, since computers are the universal tools of our time. Practically every aspect of our lives has a computer of some sort embedded into it. Having an understanding of how computers work as well as a curiosity about how to tap into their future potential will be important.

This need is especially true when you consider all of the potential applications that could be created to help us better understand biology and how the world works. We are living in an age where information technology and computing are driving the economy, and I predict computer-driven advances in synthetic biology promise to be even potentially more dramatic for the balance of the century.

Comments (1) | Reprints | Share:          

Whether you major in it or not, a fairly non-trivial amount of computer science would be helpful. The other thing is communication. One of the main things we look for when we are hiring people is their ability to write. It’s something that the average person is pretty poor at, but so much of every job today entails high proficiency at communication. I don’t know that any writing or literature or computer science need to be your majors, but if you are really good at those—if you can write a marketing pitch and put together an SQL query—you are in a really good position to find a job. You can tell a vast amount from how someone writes.

Comments | Reprints | Share:          

Anything that interests them and they are passionate about today. What they will need to know in 10 years does not exist now, given the exponential growth of knowledge.

Comments | Reprints | Share: