A short article in Forbes Magazine from a couple of weeks ago by publisher Rich Karlgaard serves up advice to college students. His "road rules" include: Purpose (think "noble purpose"), Priorities, Preparation, Pan-global view, Partner (Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak of Apple Computer fame), and Perseverance.

Read the article. For young or old alike, is his advice sound? What, if anything, is missing from this list?

I liked the article. I thought he made many interesting observations that I tend to agree with. I think the only part that I had an issue with was when he was speaking of how our K-12 should teach kids to build on their strengths and find "partners" to help with weaknesses. I agree with that much, but he seemed to think that our education system focuses on emphasizing a childs weaknesses. I don't think that is true. If anything, it seems to ignore weaknesses for fear of hurting the child's feelings. IMO, this mentality helps feed the problems he saw with American kids being "soft."

I know it's fashionable to these days to rail against mollycoddling in the public schools, social promotion, etc. etc. Worries about hurting kids' feelings and thus not 'pushing' them hard enough, while I certainly wouldn't deny they exist, are far less prevalent than most would like to allow.

The real issues with our schools today stem more from the things people would rather we didn't change, but that we probably should -- too much focus on extracurriculars, such as sports, band, clubs, etc., not enough focus on academics that'll bite you in the rear and make you study five hours a day to keep up. *That's* where we're falling behind the most.

As to the advice; it's very, very good. But more than anything, I'd focus in on the 'partnering' aspect as one that makes more difference than anything else. When you get in a group of kids who consistently push themselves, it's contagious. Norms of behavior are not simply private to each individual, but shared and influential.

In my high school, I fell into a group of four close friends (counting myself), who all pushed ourselves individually and pushed each other just as hard to compete 110% in school. Not only was it a boon to my social life (Work gets done much faster when you work collaboratively, leaving more time for spending with other friends or just whatever you enjoy doing), it gave me an extra edge on test preparation or other endeavors. The end result of partnering is that you work less and accomplish more.

When it came time for graduation, the school selected three graduation speakers, out of 700 or so graduating seniors. Myself, and two others were chosen -- all three of us from that same core group of four I mentioned above.

The downside to this is that it's somewhat cliquish -- if you get behind in such a game, you're likely to stay behind, especially in curved classes, as the partnered kids will set the curve, and then they won't see the value in expanding their group, especially with a kid who was maybe in the "B student" range and thus wouldn't 'add' anything.


The great part about a strong friendship is that it's unconditional. But while friendships may form from school partnering, the partnerships themselves don't work that way. They're just like the business world -- seeking out those who are 'value added'. It is, essentially, a way for those at the top to get that much higher. Two B students will not benefit nearly as much from partnering as two A students.


So, the suggestion about partnering is a good one (especially in high school and college), and one that's not nearly raised often enough. But it's not the solution for the kids who are falling through the cracks.