2009 News WSJ Older, Wiser, Slower After 50

However, I thought Patrick was just saying that our general population is not pushed hard enough to excel when compared with other countries and I absolutely agree. The idea that our schools do not compete on a global level is a complete farce perpetrated by folks with a political agenda. Well meaning but unaware people so earnestly believe this, though, that people look at you funny when you disagree. Here are the facts: In the US we do not track our children. Every child takes math, english, history, science, some PE, some fine arts and a few electives. When our kids are tested against other countries we take an average sample (typically from Minnesota public schools, FYI). These tests are then compared against students who are tracked towards math or science careers in their countries. It is this simple: our average are compared against other coutries best. Well no kidding we don't do as well. My source: The Maufactured Crisis. Our schools are just fine, though of course I hope we keep trying to make them better. One thing for sure: no one goes to Stanford without planning and wanting. Then you still have to get lucky.

If it's at all any reassurance, our sport relies heavily on technique. You can always refine something to make yourself more efficient. Sure we all slow down, but there will always be some give and take between being super fit, or having great skills. If you want to run or bike fast, just do more of it and pound yourself into the ground while trying. That approach doesn't necessarily apply to swimmers who like to remain competitive amongst their peers. from the article: What a toad. That's putting it mildly. :)

The sooner we teach our kids that they're competing in all aspects of their lives, the better off they'll be. I believe they are taught that lesson well. Children are placed on waiting lists for private schools before they are even born. Their free time is filled with extracurricular activities at which they are expected to excel. Then their parents spend tens of thousands of dollars on consultants to assist them in the college application process.

If you take health issues off the table, that article is bull****. I'm only 42, but certainly expect to be competing when I'm over 50. I'm not naive enough to think I'll be faster than my 42-year-old self, in the same way I'm nowhere near my 22-year-old self. But, I'll sure be racing the guy next to me, regardless of his age and doing my best to slow down how fast I slow down. The article was probably written by one of those ninnies who believe that little kids should be given "participation awards" and not place-based awards. Life is called survival of the fittest for a reason.:bitching: Amen! Word! Right On! Damn ninnies are have caused people in this society to lose their freaking backbone.

sure ... some of them are taught this at the upper end of the spectrum, but I think we as a nation are generally guilty of setting the bar too low for our children ... if you have time and interest, though, check out http://www.2mminutes.com/ to see what our typical kids are up against when competing now and in the future in the global economy. "How a student spends their Two Million Minutes - in class, at home studying, playing sports, working, sleeping, socializing or just goofing off -- will affect their economic prospects for the rest of their lives." I think that there has been a sea change in what is expected of our children today. After high school (during which time neither I nor my parents were obsessing about my economic prospects and how to fill the two million minutes--which is not to say that I did not study), I spent the next eight million minutes preparing for my career.

Humans are competitive, there are no formulas, each of us have to find a way to compete, be happy with the result and keep the enjoy to workout. There has to be a balance between being competitive and be able to perform according to age. Each individual has to find that balance.

As a former successful runner I understand where this author is coming from. It was quite demeaning to me to have to quit competitive running (osteo-arthritis left knee/an 8 year bout with hamstring issues too) and become a swimmer. I am a competitive person who used to do very well in running. In swimming I am the skinny old lady who beats the water to death and doesn't move very fast. In running my opinion counted, in swimming I keep my mouth shut so I won't get laughed at quite as much. In the end though it's all fine. I am still able to maintain a high level of fitness (inefficient swimmers really have to tax themselves to keep up w/efficient swimmers in workouts), and I have met a ton of great swimming friends who I enjoy communicating with via e-mail, forums, and in person too! I think it's very cool that so many people are able to compete at a high level to a ripe old age. I love to watch them, and almost live vicariously through their feats. I feel fine with giving whatever I have to give in my workouts....it all boils down to respect of yourself and the type of goals you have for yourself. It's okay if your body limits you as long as you are okay with it yourself! :cane:

. . . I have been trying to hire Masters' and PhD engineers, mathematicians, statisticians and other analytical types for well over a decade ... and have mostly learned about the intricacies of our H1B, L1, B1, etc. immigration process. If I pursued a "hire American" only policy, my last three companies would be woefully lacking in staff primarily because there are so few American students even in those programs. . . As an actuary, I see the same thing in hiring - a lot of immigrants on visas vying for well-paid jobs. I've also worked with people in other countries and I think their average worker is more adept than our average worker. I think America's education model worked well in the 19th and 20th Centuries, when we needed a few brilliant people and a minimally competent work force that had learned to show up on time and move to the next task when the bell rang. Today we need a lot more people who are quite bright and capable to create models and procedures that the average person can follow. (Think of a person creating a database that a whole bunch of people have to learn how to use.) The bar for what constitutes minimal competence has risen. Today you have to be able to read with comprehension and to type, among other things. In the past you had to be bright enough to do factory shift work. The reasons for our failure to produce people who can do these things quickly move into political philosophy, and I don't want to go there. All that said, I don't think handing out ribbons to every 8-year-old at the Y has contributed much to our current state. To keep to topic, maybe we should hand out a ribbon to every 50-year-old who doesn't want a burst aorta.

The idea that our schools do not compete on a global level is a complete farce perpetrated by folks with a political agenda. Well meaning but unaware people so earnestly believe this, though, that people look at you funny when you disagree. Here are the facts: In the US we do not track our children. Every child takes math, english, history, science, some PE, some fine arts and a few electives. When our kids are tested against other countries we take an average sample (typically from Minnesota public schools, FYI). These tests are then compared against students who are tracked towards math or science careers in their countries. It is this simple: our average are compared against other coutries best. Well no kidding we don't do as well. I don't believe I bashed the U.S. schools, I think I just said we probably need to push our kids a bit harder to excel on average. My thinking is that it is often times the parents that let them slack too much and those are the same parents that seem to blame the schools when their kid falls behind. My wife and I made a decision to keep our kids in the local public school that was not rated as high as other alternatives because we believe in public education. It has worked out well so far. I am sure statistics regarding education are manipulated and I am sure you can write a book that makes the case that everything is fine. Obviously, in countries like India and China they have huge segments of their population that have little education, but they also produce a ton of people (probably as many or more than the U.S.) with advanced degrees. I don't recall when I entered the work force thinking that there would be any competition for a job from a non-U.S. resident. However, now you compete against immigrants as well as oursourcing in many cases for that first job and through-out your working life. Patrick is right that it sure doesn't appear that the U.S. produces enough people with advanced degrees and engineers, etc. to meet our needs. Tim

Patrick is right that it sure doesn't appear that the U.S. produces enough people with advanced degrees and engineers, etc. to meet our needs. Tim Getting a PhD in chemical engineering will get you a job with a starting pay of atleast $90K. Get an MBA and you make, well, more (Not to menton how much easier it is!! I toyed with an stats major for about 2 quarters. Then I woke up.) Besides Goldman will pay engineers and statisticians a heck of alot more than, well, anyone else. I dont have data to support it, but I think that is why there is a dearth of engineers on the "field" level. Oh and to get back on topic, the article was also misogynistic. WSJ so no big surprise there...