TWIF+Chapter+3

Analysis: "The Triple Convergence"

In Chapter 3, Friedman discusses three factors that came together that led to further "flattening" of the world. I agree with Friedman's overall message- new innovations in technology have made it possible for the world to become a more level playing field. This shift is radically changing the way we live, work, study and even play on a drastic level. In the early 1900s, American innovations such as the assembly line and telephone changed transportation and communication forever. We have been going through a similar shift, according to Friedman, since the early 2000s. However, America is not necessarily the only place where innovation is taking place anymore. Because of the "flatteners" and outsourcing Friedman discusses, "the whole relationship between geography and talent" has changed (Friedman 225). For example, at first, many Chinese students' highest aspirations were to go to college at Harvard and Yale. Parents would write books about it, offering "scientifically proven methods" for Chinese students to get into Harvard (224). According to Friedman, this is changing. In 2001, Tsinghua University, one of China's leading universities, celebrated its 90th anniversary with the intent of celebrating its 100th as one of the **world's** leading universities. It seems as though, according to Friedman, the world is coming, ready or not. Is it possible that one day, instead of kids from China aspiring to go to Harvard, kids from America will aspire to go to Tsinghua? With the triple convergence, Friedman asserts that this may be possible. This has serious implications for the way we, as Americans, are preparing our children to be citizens of the world in the future.

If the world becomes even flatter over the next ten years, we, as humans, have a lot to gain in terms of understanding. If students and businesses begin to have relationships with other students and businesses all over the world, could it be possible that we can gain a better understanding of each other? Although it may sound overly optimistic, and perhaps a bit naive, communicating across oceans can help us to understand how others around the world live and work, all while increasing productivity and innovation. During the Cold War, Americans barely communicated with those from the USSR. Fear of communism ran rampant! However, after the cold war was over and the Iron Curtain came down, relations softened. Now, greater technology and business has opened the gateways to a greater relationship with a country we once feared. Perhaps technology is forcing us to get along and form a greater understanding of those around the world. Another positive that can come of this is that, due to an increasing number of global competitors in today's job market, American colleges and schools will be forced to make changes that have been waiting in the wings for so long. As jobs in customer service, tech support, and more have been outsourced to other countries, Americans are left with more competition for fewer jobs. Instead of fearing this change, this shift must force us to adapt. As Rajesh Rao pointed out, "Instead of complaining about outsourcing... Americans and Western Europeans would 'be better off thinking about how [they] can raise the bar and raise yourselves into doing something better'" (222). Therefore, in order to adapt, it seems as though Americans need to exercise more right-brained thinking. This shift in the world is demanding that we become, as Daniel Pink says, "meaning makers." Rajesh Rao echoes this, saying, "'What is really necessary is for everybody to wake up to the fact that a fundamental shift is happening in the way that people are going to do business. And everyone is going to have to improve themselves and be able to compete" (222). As the world becomes smaller and flatter, we must adapt in order to be able to compete.

A negative that comes about as a result is what happens if we fail to adapt. Rajesh points out that "Americans have consistently led in innovation over the last century" (222). If we want to continue that reputation, we must start from the very beginning- with the adults of the future. An Indian magazine //Outlook,// described the Indian "Zippie" as, "destination driven, not destiny driven, outward looking, not inward, upwardly mobile, not stuck-in-my-station life" (215). Are our schools equipped to fully educate students in order to compete with the global community? Do we teach students to value the destination (overall picture or meaning of a lesson) or the destiny (an "A" or "B")? Do our schools value outward looking practices through volunteerism or character education, or inward looking practices by encouraging competition through grades, high honor roll, and class ranks? The fact of the matter is that students overseas are **hungry** for knowledge. As Friedman states in his book, students in Chennai, India are working as late as 10:00 p.m. studying at night. While other countries may not be there quite yet, they have their eyes on change. Therefore, in order to prepare our students, educators and administrators must understand that teachers' methods of teaching and students' methods of learning must change. We need to restructure our education system in order to make students **hungry** for knowledge. As Daniel Pink points out, we need to encourage more right-brained thinking. Students should be engaged in the process of learning and creating, not fixated on achieving a certain letter grade. Perhaps students will be more motivated to see how technology, infused with what they learn in school, can help them in the future. If jobs of the future require forming relationships with people around the world, students need to develop a better understanding of the world they live in as well as develop more interpersonal skills like empathy. If teachers continue to deliver education in the way that its always been done, we, too can be outsourced. In addition to what we teach, American education systems must examine what they assess. Do we assess students' ability to learn and regurgitate information that can easily be done by someone overseas? Or, should the assessments of the future emphasize students' ability to innovate and communicate? The business industry has learned to adapt and innovate and it's time that education does the same. To compete in the global economy of the future, American schools must learn to change and adapt, or we will be destined to live in the past.

Summary - Chapter 3 - Heather Buterbaugh

Chapter 3 discusses Friedman's research as to how the "ten flatteners" of Chapter 2 took root in order to make our world truly flat. The chapter begins with how Friedman became aware of the "triple convergence" through his own personal experience with a Southwest Airlines boarding pass and a tv commercial for bizhub. In each of the cases, he identifies how the world around us is "flattening" but that we, as a part of this society, need to pay attention to the changes that are happening around us or we will simply be left in the dust. His example of arriving at the airport early in order to secure that elusive "Group A" boarding status for the open seating on Southwest flights only to draw a "Group B" due to his lack of knowlege of the "12:01" clause illustrates his point perfectly. (And also allowed me to understand why I was "Group C" on my last flight with them!)

Convergence 1 identifies the concept of combining similar functions is the most effective manner. Stanford economist Paul Romer identified that "there are goods that are complementary-whereby good A is a lot more valuable if you also have good B" (Friedman 203) and that when you identify the combination of these goods, productivity can be improved. In turn, Southwest Airlines identified that you as the consumer could do the job that they were paying someone else to do (printing your boarding pass) and that person could in turn be doing another job and increase their productivity.

Covergence 2 examines the idea that the mere introduction of new technology is not enough to increase productivity. Friedman discusses how the introduction of computers was expected to increase productivity immediately, but that people missed the concept that they had to change the way their businesses were operating to include the computer for it to have any real effect on productivity. Again, his example from Southwest illustrates that "until I [Friedman] personally altered my [his] ticket buying habits and reengineered myself [himself] to collaborate horizontally with Southwest, this technological breakthrough didn't produce a breakthrough for me [him]" (Friedman 208). He also explains how his concept of "thinking horizontally" applies to everything including education.

Convergence 3 illustrates how the introduction of more players on the playing field serves to increase the need for people to keep up or ahead of the curve in order to stay in the game. Through examples from India, China and Russia, Friedman discusses the entrance of millions of new players called "zippies". In India, these "zippies" come from the "54% of India that is under the age of 25 - that's 555 million people" and are focused on creating a life for themselves that is worth living. In India, that means that the family focus is on raising and educating their child to be successful by any means. He also explains how this used to be accomplished by means of coming to America, but now with the flattening of the world there is no need for people to cross their fingers for a Visa. Indian people can be successful from the comfort of their homes due in large part to outsourcing.

Friedman concludes the chapter discussing how all of these developments have been happening since around the year 2000. The issue is that people have a tendency to not notice these changes because they have been under the cloud of major world events like 9/11 and scandals like Enron. These developments, once realized, will change the role and function of technology more than people may be ready for... and in that case, keep up... because it's going to be a wild ride.