Because of the experiment I mentioned last post, I haven’t been posting much, so with this post I’d like to return to my normal posting schedule. Well, a “schedule” never really existed, so what I mean, then, is a more frequent schedule. Until my next experiment…
Anyway, on to life outside of WoW in the last 20 days. I’ve been doing okay in my classes overall. Here are my courses my order of easiest to most difficult:
- CS 1610 (Computing in the Arts): We still have not had a prelim or received any grades yet. The content is pretty straightforward.
- SOC 1101 (Intro to Sociology): I’m at an A- right now, but we just had the second prelim yesterday. I felt I didn’t do as well on it as on the first prelim, but that seems to be the general consensus, so with the curve, it may be similar.
- HIST 2500 (Technology in Society): We don’t have prelims, but instead, essays. We have three such essays that each count for 25%, and the other 25% is participation. I received an A on the first essay, but admittedly, I pulled an all-nighter for it, and the grade was very hard earned. In contrast, I do barely any work or studying for Sociology.
- ENGL 1170 (Short Stories): This class has a lot of reading and a lot of writing. By the end of this semester I’ll probably have written more in this class than in all my other classes combined, then doubled. Plus, all the writing is in the form of literary analysis, which is not exactly my favorite style. I think I have a B in it right now, and I doubt I will be able to raise it by very much.
- MATH 2230 (Theoretical Linear Algebra and Multivariable Calculus): This is by far my hardest class. The class median score on the first prelim was a 47, which I happened to get. It curved up to a B. Not bad, but it is so different from high school, where I was used to A+’s in math without doing any work. Plus, I used to be able to understand the concepts without doing the homework, and now, in college, I am starting to not understand the concepts even though I am doing the homework. My old theory: Math is easy. New theory: Math is tough.
I should probably mention some other aspects of Cornell as well. The weather has recently turned cold. For example, it is, at the time of this post, 40° F, and according to the Weather Channel, this will drop to 33° F later tonight.
I hear that in Austin, the daytime temperatures are still reaching the 80s. Lucky! 😛
Moving on… One thing I love about Cornell are the libraries. My favorite ones so far are the Uris Library and the music library (in Lincoln Hall). Uris has the appearance of being old-fashioned, and for some reason, that makes my productivity increase dramatically (though the most important aspect is likely the quietness). On the other hand, the PCL at the University of Texas looks new and modern, and for some reason, I never had much productivity in it.
The music library at Cornell is quite modern as well (and despite the name, it is actually more quiet than say the Olin library). What makes it modern is, well, one day, I heard this mechanical sound, and saw, with my own eyes, one of the bookshelves moving! It was like a scene from a Harry Potter movie…
I’ve probably spent more time in libraries in this semester so far at Cornell than during all of high school combined. I also find them very good for creative work.
Moving on again… Band! I will just have to say here once again that the BRMB (Big Red Marching Band) is amazing! It’s so much better than high school marching band. On October 8/9 (which was during the middle of my experiment), we traveled to Boston for the Cornell–Harvard game! Neither team was that great (I’m from Austin, so I am qualified to judge football competency), and we somehow managed to let Harvard catch two of their own punts. Seriously? (Harvard won 31–17.)
There are many things I would say about the trip, which was very interesting and eventful, but I am forbidden from saying anything about the bus ride. (What happens on Bus 5 stays on Bus 5.) I stayed, as did the majority of the trumpet section, with a couple (both in number and in marital relation) of Cornell band alumni on Friday night before the game. It was a fun night.
Wow, I’ve written nearly 800 words so far. It’s about time I get to the second, and what I originally intended as the main, subject of this post:
The Principles of Scientific Management
The what of what? Actually, most people whom I know in my audience have heard of this work before, as they have likely taken AP US History or a related history course at some point. When the course gets to economic progress the early twentieth century, the textbook mentions: Henry Ford and Frederick Winslow Taylor, the latter for whom the concept of “Taylorism” is named.
A refresher: Taylorism, or scientific management, is an economic theory that focuses above all on efficiency. It is concerned with maximizing productivity. That’s about all that’s mentioned in APUSH. (Here are Wiki links for Frederick Taylor and scientific management if you are interested.)
In our HIST 2500 class, “Technology in Society,” we just read Taylor’s work that founded this theory: a treatise called The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Near that period of time, labor and employers were generally not on friendly terms with each other. Remember all those labor strikes and unions you had to memorize for APUSH? Yeah…
Taylor was an engineer who proposed a solution, scientific management, to deal with this social issue. His goal was to resolve the management–labor conflict with a system that would be beneficial to both employers and workers. Scientific management, he argued, would enable workers to be much more efficient, and thereby more productive. This would allow a smaller number of specialized workers to produce much more than a larger number of normal workers, which would in turn allow the employer to raise wages and still increase profit.
We are not talking about minor improvements here. Taylor didn’t argue that 10-20% increases in productivity would solve the labor issue. His analysis in the book shows that in many industries the daily productivity of one worker could be doubled, and in some cases, tripled or even more. It means that not only were the employers gaining more revenue, but the workers were also earning higher wages. And, as Taylor implies, this increase in production would also lower the prices of manufactured goods, which helps the common people: they have more money and can buy cheaper goods. It’s a win-win-win situation.
So how exactly does this increase in productivity occur? The idea is to make every part of every task as efficient as possible. For a shoveler, a group of scientists carefully analyzed which type of person was most suited for shoveling. They also figured out the optimum load on the shovel (21 pounds—any more or less in one scoop would reduce the overall efficiency), which type of shovel should be used for different materials, and even what material the bottom of the container that is being shoveled from should be. They figured out how many rest breaks the workers should have, and for how long they should last, and when they are scheduled. And they analyzed each motion in shoveling as to figure out which ones are necessary and which ones are useless, which movements are faster and which are slower, and how to shovel as to move the greatest amount of material in the least amount of time.
My crazy idea is to apply the theory of scientific management to other things. Oh wait, that’s already been done. Often with unremarkable consequences.
What I really should do is to have some degree of scientific management in my life, that is, have a schedule. At college I am going pretty much without a schedule. Then again, NOT playing WoW is probably much more significant in productivity-increasing than whatever I could I apply from scientific management. Plus, the application of scientific management requires at least two people, so if I were to try to apply this, someone would need to be my “manager.” Interesting, but no thanks.