Most Educated State in the US

The United States Census has some interesting facts on the education rates of each state. The chart below shows the percentage of adults over 25 years of age who have at least a bachelors degree. The top position goes to the District of Columbia, but since it is such a small area, it probably isn’t really fair to compare it with the other states. If we don’t count D.C. then the most educated state is Massachusetts where you stand a 36% chance that anyone you happen to meet has graduated with a four year degree.

Continue reading “Most Educated State in the US”

Capella’s IPO

Capella announced that it is going to go public. Capella has always looked like an interesting university. They are a commercial enterprise and based on their requirements it seems that they probably rank a little higher academically than University of Phoenix.

“Capella Education Co. of Minneapolis, one of the few private education firms to offer college degrees exclusively through online courses, said Monday it plans an initial public stock offering that could raise up to $86.25 million.”

“Capella, the parent company of Capella University, will use proceeds from the IPO for working capital and general corporate purposes, which could include expansion, developing new courses and acquisitions, the company said.”

It will be interesting to see how they put this money to use. Developing online courses can be very expensive. If they are able to create a solid infrastructure for creating courses, it could help them leap ahead of the competition. Currently the two places that seem to be successfully doing online education are Harvard and Standford. Their online classes mirror live classes and they do a good job of keeping the experience the same (as much as possible) for both the online and real time students.

Online learning is a growing market into which private companies have raced since the late 1990s, partly because traditional colleges and universities were slow to adapt to online teaching.

One of the reasons traditional institutions have been slow to react is because of the expense of being cutting edge. It is a lot less expensive to put a class online that it was a few years ago, but it is still a major undertaking. I think most colleges and universities are looking at it, but most don’t have the money to successfully pull it off.

Capella attributes its growth partly to growing acceptance of online education and to its relationships with companies, colleges and branches of the U.S. military that have endorsed its online services to their employees or students.

I think this is the key. Capella is not inexpensive. Most people aren’t going to take classes unless they are paid for by their employer. If Capella can sell themselves to large companies as a way for their employees to take classes without needing to be gone from work, they can get a tremendous number of student. I was at a Franklin Covey training session where I met someone who works for GM. He said he was working on his PHD through Capella. I got the impression that a good number of GM employees are doing this as well. A good number of them will probably never complete the degree.

I am concerned about institutions that opt for a cheap way of doing online education where it is basically correspondence school using the internet instead of USPS. A lot of these classes rely on relatively light reading assignments and much of the student’s time is spent on message boards with other students. I don’t think that the message boards is necessarily a bad way to learn and interact, but I think it can keep people from really learning how to concentrate on a subject for a long period of time.

You should be able to assume that a college graduate can stay engaged in a day long seminar because they should have learned that level of concentration in order to get their degree. If their educational experience was primarily reading and responding to short posts, they may never develop the skills necessary to assimilate 3 hours of information from a dense lecture.

Another problem with some of the modern teaching theory is the idea that if you just make a bunch of people interact with each other, their life experiences will rub off and everyone will be smarter. In some cases this is the idea behind using the message boards. I think it is valuable to learn from your fellow students. In fact that is one of the reasons that I really like learning in an actual classroom. But I think that learning that is primarily based on talking with other students about their experiences in life falls short of true education. In most fields of study that have been around long enough to reach some sort of structure, simply talking with other students won’t allow you to cover the material very quickly. A group of freshman music students are unlikely to really understand the fundamentals of music theory just by chatting with each other. That isn’t to say that chatting won’t produce some valuable interaction, but they aren’t likely to learn the majority of what they need to know this way.

I think online courses are most effective when they mirror an actual class with videos of the teacher lecturing. I don’t think this is how Capella is currently doing their classes.

I think the best thing that a company like Capella could do is partner up with existing institutions and re brand the lectures from the top lecturers in each field. Teaching fellows could help facilitate the day to day questions and course management. The professors themselves would need to be available in some capacity as well. If this was done correctly the academic experience from Capella could be better than going to a physical university because students would get to study under the best teacher for each class. Recent high school graduates would still want to go to a physical college or university because the social education is just as important as the academic education, but older students looking to continue their education could have a greater trust in the academic soundness of their university even if it is only a virtual one.

Article: Capella Education going public

Development Cycle at Apple and Microsoft

One of the attributes of a good software development process is consistently releasing software. With this in mind, I wanted to compare the development cycles from Microsoft and Apple when it comes to their Operating Systems. I only compared the client operating systems and not the server versions.

OS X:
10.0 — March 2001
10.1 — Sept 2001
10.2 — Sept 2002
10.3 — Oct 2003
10.4 — April 2005

Windows:
NT 4.0 — July 1996
Windows 2000 — February 2000
XP — Oct 2001
LongHorn — 2006 (estimate)

It is interesting to note that Apple has consistently produced incremental improvements to their operating system with about one release per year. (They say that starting with 10.4 they are going to slow down this pace, I’m guessing they will release a new version every 2 years.)

I am curious about the size of the development teams. I would guess that Apple’s is probably smaller, but I can’t find any actual numbers. Apple doesn’t worry as much about backwards compatibility. If a developer wrote software that takes advantage of a nonstandard API, Apple doesn’t care if it stops working in a later release. Microsoft on the other hand does extensive testing to make sure that older software will work with each new operating system. This may give Apple something of an advantage because they don’t have to support a large set of complicated “bugs” in order to make poorly written software work as expected.

The foundation of OS X is NextSTEP which was designed by some of the best Object Oriented programmers back in the 80’s. If Apple does indeed have a smaller developer team, I wonder if the base of software they are working with gives them some type of advantage when it comes to consistently delivering new versions. I’m sure both companies are making use of OO design, but if Apple strives for the same type of elegance and simplicity in their code as they do in their hardware, they may have a significant advantage.

When Microsoft comes out with a new release, it usually involves years of coding. The upgrade from Windows 200 to Windows XP was an incremental change. Most of XP seems to be based on Windows 2000 and the changes seem to be more cosmetic than anything else. I believe they made some significant changes under the hood (especially with regard to graphics), but for most uses XP just has a different (possibly better looking) interface. If you have a computer with Windows 2000, it is hard to justify upgrading unless you have a specific application that requires XP (video editing for example). Because of this, I think Microsoft may be trying create new versions of the operating system that are less incremental. If the changes are revolutionary then more people may want to buy it for the new features.

From the client side of things, there isn’t really any killer application that is making people go out and buy new computers. Video editing is probably one of the few applications that really requires today’s top end hardware. If Longhorn is going to be significantly slower on today’s hardware than XP or even Windows 2000, what is the incentive to upgrade? Microsoft is going to make an operating system that is so innovative that people will be compelled to upgrade. They did this when Windows 2000 came out. The majority of the upgrades to Windows 2000 weren’t because of the stunning new features. People upgraded because it was more stable and easier to use. By easier to use, I’m not referring to the cosmetic changes to the interface. I’m referring to the fact that it was much simpler to do things that we now take for granted like setup networking.

Microsoft is going to have a difficult time of convincing people to upgrade to Longhorn unless they deliver a product that is much more stable and much easier to use. Right now it looks like they have a lot of cool features (transparent windows, etc), but it will take a lot of work to turn these features into actual usability improvements.

Apple has been following the incremental improvement path. The differences between 10.2 and 10.3 weren’t earth shattering, but 10.3 runs enough faster and has just enough improvements to make it worth the $129 upgrade price. In general you have 2 options to speed up a mac, buy a new computer or buy the newest operating system and perhaps some additional RAM. There is a lot of incentive to upgrade your OS if you know it will make your computer run faster. I don’t how long they can keep this up, but I’ve heard reports of people using the beta version of Tiger that won’t go back to 10.3 because of the increase in speed.

In the long run, it is hard to say which strategy will win. But if Apple continues to produce incremental upgrades every 1 to 2 years and Microsoft continues to produce radical changes every 4 to 6 years (with a possible incremental improvement in between), I predict that Apple will continue to erode Microsoft’s market share. With a shorter release schedule, Apple will be more prepared to deal with changes to the market. They will also get feed back more quickly. If the market doesn’t like 10.4 Apple can quickly correct for this in version 10.5. On a 4 to 6 year development cycle this is much more difficult to do.

Virtual Private Linux Servers

There used to be two choices for web hosting. You could get a dedicated server for several hundred dollars each month. This would give you complete control of your machine letting you schedule automatic jobs to run, upgrade packages, etc. Or you could share a server with a bunch of other people. This would keep your expenses low (sometimes under $10 per month or even free), but you were restricted to basically just uploading static pages or PHP.

There is some software out there called user mode Linux that lets you create virtual machines on one physical box. This means hosting companies can put in one server and share it among several users. The users get complete control (including root access) at low prices. For people who want to host small to medium sites, this is perfect. They still get complete control and shell access, but they don’t have to pay for an entire machine.

  • Easy Co — Currently I’m hosting www.markwshead.com at EasyCo. They have good service and telephone tech support. I pay about $15 per month for their base level package.
  • Redwood Virtual — I host blog.markwshead.com with Redwood. They don’t have telephone support, but their prices are even cheaper. It is only $8.33 per month if you pay for a year upfront. They recently added an interface that allows you to reboot your system if it gets hung, so this makes the telephone support less of an issue. It will also let you reinstall everything back to the original settings which can be nice if something gets terribly messed up.
  • Open Hosting — I just ran across this company the other day. Instead of limiting your virtual machine to the resources you’ve paid for, they will give you a base package and then charge you for the extra usage at the end of the month. If you are like me where your machines sit idle or just serving http 95% of the time, this may be a good way to get a lot more power while still keeping costs down. Currently with Redwood and Easy Co, I’m running into limitations because of the amount of RAM I’m paying for. I can’t run some of the tools I need, but it is hard to justify upgrading to the next level when I only need to run the tools once or twice a month. Right now it is cheaper to do it offline and upload the results. A setup like Open Hosting might work very well because I’d have the extra resources when I needed them.