Great ride, and I'm back to my old times: 26 km/hr for 40 minutes into work. My gears are a mess and I'll get the bike up on the repair stand this weekend for a tune-up. Took two of the boys out on the boat last night to retrieve our crab trap out of the Pacific, but as expected there was only a sunfish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zxIKnStnOg munching on the bait. I really need to spend more on a better trap because this one is easy for these things to crawl into, and surely they scare away crabs.
Today's On Point show http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/09/shaking-up-higher-ed is entitled "Shaking Up Higher Education" and is highly relevant to me. We have four boys, with the oldest in Grade 12 and ready to enter university in a year.
The discussion was on the competitiveness of American universities, which are facing overeas competition, increasing costs and are facing a growing push toward removing tenure. U.S. schools were (and are) the envy of the world, and I can say from personal experience that Asian parents work their children hard in order to get into prestigious schools. The goal seems to be "get in" as opposed "learn." This reminds me of my comment yesterday that the Republican goal seems to be "get elected" as opposed to "govern." Like any business, universities are affected by supply (schools) and demand (students) and need to provide a suitable value proposition to prospective students. Using the internet, students can research schools and will pay attention to what current students and recent graduates have to say. Regardless of the school's image and professional ranking, word-of-mouth via the internet will increasingly affect enrollment, and revenue from tuition. The message from one of the panelists was that U.S. schools are in a crisis situation, but academics and deans don't believe it.
A lot of the focus was on the increasing cost of obtaining a university education, and personally speaking this is a primary reason why we chose to move to Canada instead of the U.S. If we had moved to say, Washington state, then the kids would have been encouraged to attend "U Dub" in order to get in-state tuition. Currently, this is $8,710 per year, and out-of-state tuition is triple the in-state price tag at $25,329. It's possible that one or more of the kids might have been disappointed in the state university system and instead set their hearts on another school in another state. Assuming other states' fees are the same, a 4-year degree would set us back $100,000 plus the cost of travel etc. Private schools are somewhat pricier, and I imagine in the $40,000 range for a reasonably good school. There's a risk premium of between $15,000 and $30,000 per year, per kid, for each one that opts to go out-of-state or private.
In Canada, all public universties are around $5,000 per year for Canadians and $20,000 for non-Canadians. This means that all the schools across the country are the equivalent of "in-state" so our kids have a wide, affordable choice. We're encouraging them to attend the University of British Columbia (UBC) which is one of several local universities, but also happens to be ranked in the top 40 globally. They can live at home, get a great education, and not break mom and dad's piggy bank. Plus, they can get up to Whistler during the ski season and enjoy other hobbies like mountain climbing and biking. Many of their friends want to "get away" for university, but our kids "got away" their entire lives and are still learning what life is like in this foreign country of Canada, so luckily that's not an issue for us.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Congressional elections around the corner
Today's was a great show on the upcoming US elections.
The weak state of the U.S. economy continues to drive interest in and the direction of the election. If unemployment was back at NRU around 4-5% and GDP was growing modestly, I believe the Democrats would win easily. The average person links satisfaction with government overwhelmingly to current job and career satisfaction, and with Obama's relatively recent election the Congressional elections would be in the bag. But that's not the case, and voters worldwide have gotten rid of incumbents because they're willing to believe that a change, any change, is better than maintaining the status quo. Republicans understand this and with nothing to lose they are intent on using extreme language and diversionary tactics to win votes. Democrats refuse to make waves by employing Republican tactics, and are letting Congress slip out of their hands.
Republicans see the election as a battle to be won, and winning Congress is the sole objective so that Obama can be defeated in 2012. Democrats seem to be more genuinely interested in governing for the people, and are not willing to sacrifice their self respect in order to win. Republican tactics are proving successful and they rationalize their lack of shame by being the ones in power, while Democrats wring their hands and complain about dirty politics. If the Democrats continue to seek the high ground they need to rely on a successful economy, and failing that for the next several years, they need to fight fire with fire. Unfortunately, their platform appeals to the well meaning public, and the Republican message attracts the unsatisfied public, which is likely the majority. If the economy remains poor then I still expect Obama to be re-elected, but the U.S. government will become increasingly dysfunctional as the economy is used as a pawn in the Congressional election game. Today, the GOP obstructs measures that will help the economy and create jobs, but simultaneously blames the Democrats for not doing enough. The Dems could push through legislation, but fear of bad press. That's how I define "dysfunctional."
The American middle needs a moderate version of the Tea Party so that they can legitimately "reclaim their country. " The Tea Party has no clue about who they want to reclaim the country from, but in this case it's clear to me that political and media extremists have done the hijacking. Obama seems intent on restoring decency to the Presidency and Democratic Party, but he really needs to wait for a booming economy because his vocal opponents understand that the large, disctontented public is vulnerable to extreme messages. Some FDR and JFK politicking would help their cause immensely.
The weak state of the U.S. economy continues to drive interest in and the direction of the election. If unemployment was back at NRU around 4-5% and GDP was growing modestly, I believe the Democrats would win easily. The average person links satisfaction with government overwhelmingly to current job and career satisfaction, and with Obama's relatively recent election the Congressional elections would be in the bag. But that's not the case, and voters worldwide have gotten rid of incumbents because they're willing to believe that a change, any change, is better than maintaining the status quo. Republicans understand this and with nothing to lose they are intent on using extreme language and diversionary tactics to win votes. Democrats refuse to make waves by employing Republican tactics, and are letting Congress slip out of their hands.
Republicans see the election as a battle to be won, and winning Congress is the sole objective so that Obama can be defeated in 2012. Democrats seem to be more genuinely interested in governing for the people, and are not willing to sacrifice their self respect in order to win. Republican tactics are proving successful and they rationalize their lack of shame by being the ones in power, while Democrats wring their hands and complain about dirty politics. If the Democrats continue to seek the high ground they need to rely on a successful economy, and failing that for the next several years, they need to fight fire with fire. Unfortunately, their platform appeals to the well meaning public, and the Republican message attracts the unsatisfied public, which is likely the majority. If the economy remains poor then I still expect Obama to be re-elected, but the U.S. government will become increasingly dysfunctional as the economy is used as a pawn in the Congressional election game. Today, the GOP obstructs measures that will help the economy and create jobs, but simultaneously blames the Democrats for not doing enough. The Dems could push through legislation, but fear of bad press. That's how I define "dysfunctional."
The American middle needs a moderate version of the Tea Party so that they can legitimately "reclaim their country. " The Tea Party has no clue about who they want to reclaim the country from, but in this case it's clear to me that political and media extremists have done the hijacking. Obama seems intent on restoring decency to the Presidency and Democratic Party, but he really needs to wait for a booming economy because his vocal opponents understand that the large, disctontented public is vulnerable to extreme messages. Some FDR and JFK politicking would help their cause immensely.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Hit the 3,000 km mark
My daily commute is 36 km (22.5 miles) and features a fairly brisk ride into Vancouver from our 200m mountain elevation down to sea level, during which I average about 23 km/hr over the 40 minute ride and considerably less on the return. On the ride home the 200m elevation is recovered via a very steep climb for about 1.2kms (that reclaims about 150m of elevation) followed by a gradual 2.5km that recovers the rest.
It doesn't compare at all to the 100km climbs in The Tour de France, and while I think most people my age would find it hard to do, a reasonably fit person could certainly match my time. I was regularly getting into work in about 40 minutes and back home in about 55, but I replaced the chain and rear cogset and this really slowed me down. The "cogset" is the mass of teeth on the back wheel, and is the partner to the "chainring" at the center of the bike, which is powered by the cyclist's feet. When a cyclist changes gears, one gear shifter moves the chain up and down each "sprocket" in the cogset, and another moves the chain around the chainring. Competitive bikers adjust the cogset to suit the course, and for long, straight journeys they would go with a cogset with fewer teeth to generate speed, and for steep courses they would opt for many teeth to help them climb. For a course with varied terrain they need both, and for single track courses in a velodrome they probably just need a single speed.
The rear cogset is connected to the chainring by the chain and creates the "drivetrain." I was given my bike for free, and after learning more about bike repair I saw that the chain was old and stretched out, and had whittled away the teeth on the cogset. It's simple to understand because the chain and teeth work in unison, and and if the chain doesn't align with the teeth anymore then it grinds away at the teeth where there's friction.
I bought a new chain and cogset (called a cassette if all the sprockets are together) but was erroneously given a 7-sprocket one to replace my 8-sprocket cogset. I installed it, and then attached the smallest sprocket from the old cogset so the chain wouldn't fall off. That small sprocket has the fewest teeth, and is the one a cyclist uses to go really fast, but I had to disable it because it had been ground down by the old chain and didn't mesh with the new chain. So I can't use this sprocket to achieve high speeds and I wind up coasting a lot.
I'll have to replace the cogset , but ideally would like to wait for a few thousand kms so as to not waste the money I spent. I'll wait and see if my time is being constrained a lot because of this.
It doesn't compare at all to the 100km climbs in The Tour de France, and while I think most people my age would find it hard to do, a reasonably fit person could certainly match my time. I was regularly getting into work in about 40 minutes and back home in about 55, but I replaced the chain and rear cogset and this really slowed me down. The "cogset" is the mass of teeth on the back wheel, and is the partner to the "chainring" at the center of the bike, which is powered by the cyclist's feet. When a cyclist changes gears, one gear shifter moves the chain up and down each "sprocket" in the cogset, and another moves the chain around the chainring. Competitive bikers adjust the cogset to suit the course, and for long, straight journeys they would go with a cogset with fewer teeth to generate speed, and for steep courses they would opt for many teeth to help them climb. For a course with varied terrain they need both, and for single track courses in a velodrome they probably just need a single speed.
The rear cogset is connected to the chainring by the chain and creates the "drivetrain." I was given my bike for free, and after learning more about bike repair I saw that the chain was old and stretched out, and had whittled away the teeth on the cogset. It's simple to understand because the chain and teeth work in unison, and and if the chain doesn't align with the teeth anymore then it grinds away at the teeth where there's friction.
I bought a new chain and cogset (called a cassette if all the sprockets are together) but was erroneously given a 7-sprocket one to replace my 8-sprocket cogset. I installed it, and then attached the smallest sprocket from the old cogset so the chain wouldn't fall off. That small sprocket has the fewest teeth, and is the one a cyclist uses to go really fast, but I had to disable it because it had been ground down by the old chain and didn't mesh with the new chain. So I can't use this sprocket to achieve high speeds and I wind up coasting a lot.
I'll have to replace the cogset , but ideally would like to wait for a few thousand kms so as to not waste the money I spent. I'll wait and see if my time is being constrained a lot because of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)