I have been teaching full-time at George Brown College’s downtown Toronto campus in the Faculty of Business since the autumn of 2000. To say that I’m happy is an understatement: You couldn’t get me out of here with attack dogs and water cannons (more about this later).
I think that for most of the young people I’ve worked with, it’s either “love him or hate him.” There is a website, www.ratemyprofessors.com, that posts these assessments from former students:
“Most stupid teacher I have met, don’t waste your time to take this class, waste [of] money and waste [of] time, really really unhelpful.”
“He’s the best teacher ever! Some students don’t like him or are scared of him, but if you look closely, Mr. Hlinka is the easiest person to deal with. He’s [a] very straightforward, no nonsense type of person. Though he’s tough, he actually has a heart of gold. Very engaging, intelligent, extremely helpful, & a great motivator.…
Don’t believe what the other “comments” say because he wrote them all. This guy is a waste [of] time.…1
Let’s call it a hung jury and leave it at that. Yet, even though the reviews are mixed, I think that virtually every former student of mine would agree that I test more frequently than most other instructors. There are several reasons for this. Attendance is frequently an issue at George Brown College and I have this crazy idea that attendance and academic success are positively correlated.
A point about this concept. When we say that things are positively correlated, what is implied is that when one increases the other increases or when one decreases the other decreases, and that a causal relationship exists. That is, better attendance leads to higher grades and vice versa. An example of negative correlation might be the relationship between hours spent with Netflix and grades: the more time a student watches movies, the lower his grades. Correlation — both positive and negative — will be a recurring theme in Stalled because I’m trying to determine what caused the economy to grow and which factors are responsible for it flatlining over the past fifteen years.
There are other reasons why I test as frequently as I do. It keeps students on top of the material throughout the semester, rather than encouraging them to cram for a single final exam. And because education really should be about the learning (shouldn’t it?), testing is a wonderful feedback mechanism. It lets students know whether they understand the subject matter or not.
I am an old dog and testing is one of my tricks. Therefore, I’m going to be testing you, good reader, throughout this book. Interspersed among these two-hundred-and-thirty–odd pages are one hundred questions. I would encourage you to fill them in manually or check them off mentally. Of course, you can ignore them altogether, although I hope you don’t. They will help focus your thinking about whether the arguments I present are persuasive and enable us to agree on a path that will lead to a brighter future for everyone.
But first: seven questions to measure your interest in proceeding. I’ve already introduced myself as a tenured professor at George Brown College. Some of you might recognize me from my business commentary on CBC Radio. I also teach at the University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Studies, running their Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) and Canadian Securities Course (CSC) programs.
One of the important features of the University of Toronto courses is that they provide students with the opportunity to attend a couple of classes, then decide if the methodology is right for them. If it’s not, they get a full refund. I like this policy. It helps students make informed decisions about going forward — or not — because the worst mistake anyone can make in the short time we have on this planet is to waste time.
That’s what these questions are about. There aren’t right or wrong answers, per se. But they will help you determine at a very early stage whether you should dedicate a good number of hours reading Stalled, or do something else from which you’ll derive more value.
Value and values will be important words in Stalled. Robert Pirsig, whom you may know as the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, followed up with another book, one that I found infinitely more interesting: Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals. Pirsig talks a lot about values in Lila. According to him, our values express what is most important to us, and what is most important to us determines how we go about acting every day. I agree with him.
So, I’ve decided it’s best to start with a few questions that will help you see if your values and mine are in sync. Now for the questions!
QUESTION 1
Are people rational economic actors?
Allow me to explain why I’m asking this.
My experience has been that people use their reason to help them get what they believe is best for them at a particular point in time. It must be noted that all of us are subject to “bounded rationality.” That is, our ability to reason is imperfect and frequently coloured by emotion. The assertion that we’re rational doesn’t mean that there isn’t the possibility of a temporal mismatch, that is, what seems good for us in one instant might not seem so if we adopt a different time horizon. (“Sure, Ben, one more for the road.…” That fourth draft at the Crown and Dragon at 10:30 p.m. on Sunday evening sure felt good going down, but it failed to take into account that in six short hours I’d have to rise and shine, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, for my 6:45 a.m. business commentary on CBC Radio.) It doesn’t mean that my decision was irrational — it just wasn’t particularly well thought through.
One more thing. The term rational economic actor implies the use of reason by a person when making economic choices, not that every decision revolves solely around “profit-maximizing” grounds. Let me return to that “fourth draft” example. I know that if I have that extra brewski, I’m going to have less money in my wallet. But I also believe that my overall utility (a fancy word for well-being) will be enhanced by it, making the decision a rational one.
Bottom line: Being a rational economic actor doesn’t guarantee that one makes the “right” decision; it implies only that thought went into the decision before it was made.
QUESTION 1
Are people rational economic actors?
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
QUESTION 2
Would you agree that human nature hasn’t changed in the past several thousand years and is unlikely to change in the next few thousand?
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
QUESTION 3
Do incentive systems determine behaviour?
We are at the same time self-interested beings and social animals. Incentive systems are designed to encourage us to act in a manner which is consistent with the general good, which means that frequently they “tilt” against our natural instinct.
Telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth may not always be the best thing for witnesses in, say, a courtroom setting. This is why we penalize those who lie under oath. Think of perjury sentences as a stick.
In free and competitive markets, doing hard, dangerous, and high–value added work is rewarded more than doing easy, safe, and low–value added work. Think of the extra compensation as a carrot.
And civil society needs both sticks and carrots.
QUESTION 3
Do incentive systems determine behaviour?
☐ Yes.
☐ No.
QUESTION 4
Do you agree that actions speak louder than words and that individuals demonstrate what is truly important to them by the actions they take, not what they say?
☐ Yes.
☐