Just Plain Bill

Does SIZE really matter?

Throughout each day, we hear that “size does matter” in all kinds of advertisements, medical claims, or jokes of all degrees of acceptability.

Each starts with the assumption that bigger is always better. To me, it all depends on context. Life’s experiences and circumstances have taught me that size does matter, but that bigger is not always better.

I imagine we all interpret the comment on our own terms, from a perspective based on our personal circumstances. Bigger must seem better to someone “vertically-challenged” and not big enough to reach something. What about something cerebral such as the "size" of our vocabulary? How can bigger be better if someone on the receiving end of the vocabulary doesn’t understand the sender’s message? How about a technological skill set? There are certainly times when a specialist is preferred over a general professional. How critical is the relative size of our family? Our group of friends? Our circles of influence?

As I reflect on the term “size” in relation to my family – one sibling, my mother, and an absent father by the onset of my teenage years – it’s natural to ponder what my life would have been like if the size of my family had included many siblings and close relatives. I’d like to imagine each would have benefitted me in some way, even if by something as simple as expanding my perceptions of the world and the personalities in it.

Just Plain Bill

Tired of all the commercials on TV?

Have you noticed lately that the amount of time dedicated to commercials on TV is growing? And, have you wondered if it’s always been that way?

I can remember when there was a “reasonable” limit on the amount of time for commercials on TV. I know it was less than what I’m experiencing these days, so I checked the Internet to see if my assumptions were correct.

According to Marketing Charts, an “Average Hour-Long TV Show is 36% Commercials.” Wow. I knew it was a lot, but I didn’t know it was that much. And to take it a step further, their research also shows that late night shows are often 50% commercials. Ugh.

As a budding social psychologist, I believe the impact of the growing use of commercials first began to be somewhat ameliorated by the invention and popularity of the TV remote control. The TV remote, available since Zenith produced theirs in 1950 (it was called “lazy bones”), enabled us to either turn off the sound when the commercials came on or simply change the channel to “get away” from the incessant commercials.

An excellent contribution and personal irritation from my editor, Allyn Geer: “Commercial avoidance was later aided by the short-lived Sony Betamax, which was trounced in the market share battle by the VHS VCR. We recorded our shows not just for convenience of viewing according to our schedules, but for the sheer delight in being able to fast forward through the annoyances. Presently of course, we’re witnessing explosive growth of television shows on DVD, DVRs that work like a VCR but able to fast forward at warp speed, and subscription TV that allows us to enjoy commercial-free programs. I had high hopes for the ‘on demand’ channels offered by my cable company. At first, I could fast-forward through the short and redundant ads. Alas, the networks no longer allow fast forwarding through their superfluous, self-serving promotions, in spite of the fact the cable company markets ‘on demand’ as a benefit from my monthly subscription. Ha, I’ve gone back to the DVR.”

Finally, this subject of commercial regulation is an area that is hay for debate in the political arena. (More on this “let the markets regulate themselves” philosophy in a later blog.)

The question then becomes “should the industry be able to ‘regulate’ itself?” For television, the answer seems to me to be a resounding “NO!”

Just Plain Bill

Pro or Con: Should students be able to use their cell phones in class?

There has been an ongoing debate about whether students should be able to keep their cell phones on and active during class. I know the majority of opinion is directed towards not allowing their use, but I have a contrarian viewpoint for the following reasons:

1.   A recent study has stated that people access their phones at least 100 times a day. It’s done even more frequently by millennials. It’s so much more than just a desire by students to keep their phones on. It’s now a deeply ingrained habit and accepted as quite normal behavior. 

2.   There is an excellent book by Cliff Atkinson, The Backchannel, which provides pretty compelling evidence why cell phones and the use of social media are changing the ways of presentations in class. An excerpt from Amazon.com states:

“Armed with laptops and smartphones, audiences today are no longer sitting quietly taking notes during live presentations. Instead, they’re carving out a new space in the room called the backchannel, where people are online searching for resources, checking your facts, and connecting with others inside the room and out.”

3.   Over the past three years, I’ve observed my very own business writing, business speaking, and professional selling classes working in the backchannel. There have been numerous instances where a student or a group of my students engaged in research on their own to bring current facts to the class’s attention (including this instructor’s) and provide definitions that enhanced the textbook information.

On one special occasion, an 18-year old mother of a two-year old used her cell phone as her media support for a final presentation. Her topic was finding critical resources for her home and family. This student did not have access to a computer to prepare the graphics she needed, so she used the search function on her phone to demonstrate how one might find those critical resources. By her hands-on demonstration, she encouraged other students to recognize the value of the searches as well.

Final comment: I find that a great deal of the resistance to allowing students to use their cell phones in class is related to the need for “control” on the part of the instructor. It’s been proven time and time again that the more students are engaged in their own learning, the more the learning will “stick.”

What do you think?

Just Plain Bill

Just found a lost 1925 dime,

and was wondering…

As I was packing for a recent move, I found a 1925 dime in the pocket of a pair of pants. Once past the delight of that nice little surprise, my thoughts wandered to what might be found in the pockets of other clothes I’d not worn for awhile. After that, I found myself wondering what this well-worn dime was worth many years ago.

A1925 dollar would be worth $12.20 today. The US population was estimated at 11.8 million. The average cost of a house was $8,580. The average cost of a car was $375 and a Harley-Davidson motorcycle cost around $200. An average annual salary was $1,236.

America was in the midst of the “Roaring Twenties,” an era with a heavy emphasis on commerce that in turn produced incredible business growth. More than 40 million Americans went to the movies each week and their average ticket was 30 cents – three of my dimes. There were 20 million cars on the road. Owning a radio was, for most Americans, as important as owning a computer today. 1925 was the year cigarettes were first marketed to women.  Spam, processed meat in a can, was introduced and is still being sold to this day. The cost of a full year at an Ivy League college – tuition, room and board - less than $1,400.

Our grocery list at 1925 prices would read, as follows:

Eggs              .48/doz.

Milk              .       14/quart

Bread              .09/loaf

Chuck steak       .21/lb.

Potatoes              .03/lb.

Flour              .05/lb.

Sugar              .09/lb.

Coffee              .47/lb.

Bacon              .04/lb.

Looking back at the time when my 1925 was minted provides a snapshot of the business world a long time ago and a country much, much different than current day. A normal education consisted of finishing the eighth grade. Women were allowed to vote following the passage of the 19^th amendment only five years earlier and the first woman governor was elected in Wyoming in 1925. The debate still raging today about the teaching of evolution in schools got its start with the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in 1925.

I find it fun to occasionally look back at a time without checking accounts, credit cards, television, FM radio, and only a rare telephone or two (complete with operators and party lines). As a teacher, my life would have been much different. “Spare the rod, spoil the child” would have been the order of the day – without any concern or thought given to student engagement and interaction, my favored way of teaching.

Although…with a 1925 grade school teacher salary of $1,650 a year (in NYC), I would have been about 25% above that annual salary across the country. Livin’ high, eh?

Now I’m wondering what era saw the drop in teachers’ salaries below the national average…and why.