The Last Millennium Speech: Implications for Higher Education

President J. Michael Adams, September 17, 1999

I. Introduction

The title of my presentation today is "The Last Millennium Speech: Implications for Higher Education." I am very enthusiastic about being here today because there are only 105 days remaining before the end of 1999. I cannot wait for it to be over. 

I confess to being very tired of all this talk about the new millennium: 

* Y2K, 
* the catastrophic collapse of civilization, 
* the "new" environment, 
* the projected champagne shortage, 
* the "future is now" hype, 
and all the other projections, observations and articles about a simple 
move to a new date on the calendar. 

I recall a conference presentation in 1978, titled "The New Millennium Awaits Us - Be Prepared." After more than 20 years, I'm ready for it to be over. Getting prepared for the "new millennium" is exhausting, and I've decided this is my last presentation on the topic. 

Frankly, I blame Julius Caesar for the current millennium hysteria. We could have been spared all this except for the ego of Caesar. The Romans gave us many western institutions - for better or for worse - including the foundation of our current calendar. The original Roman calendar was numbered beginning with the founding of Rome. Unfortunately, Caesar, impressed with his emerging empire, decided to start a new calendar in the year 46 B.C. and created an entirely new calendar numbering system. If he had just left things alone this year would actually be the year 2752, instead of 1999, and we wouldn't have any hype about a new millennium. 

Of course, Caesar was not unique in his interference. A bit later Pope Gregory, invoking Church authority, took away a few days from the Julian  calendar - creating the Gregorian calendar - thereby even further shortening our anticipation for this grand, magical event, the  ear 2000. 

Frankly, all the world is NOT riveted by the number 2000. For example, the Hebrew calendar tells us we are in the year 5760 - three-quarters of the way to the seventh millennium. And my favorite calendar, the Chinese Calendar, places us in the 16th year of another 60-year cycle. The wise Chinese completely avoid mention of any 1,000-year units or new millennia. 

Colleagues, there is nothing magical about the year 2000. The new millennium is an absolutely artificial construct. On January 1, 2000, we will simply turn one more page on our calendars. 

Calendar dates are meaningless numbers. The only reality is that each of us, every day, faces new challenges that appear decidedly more challenging than those of yesterday, a week ago or last year. That's called progress. It was true in 46 B.C., in 1452, in 1888, and it is true in 1999. 

However, I acknowledge there is something unique about this era that is different from any other in the history of humanity - the rate of change. 

The rate of change today is more rapid than in any previous generation. Population growth, urbanization, rapid communication, new technology and technological tools, accelerated transportation systems and digital media all contribute to an awesome era of rapidly spreading new ideas and applications and the need for agile  adaptation. 

However, the challenges we face have nothing to do with the calendar. Looking back to certain years and looking ahead to certain numbers do us no good. What's more important is to constantly evaluate the foundations of our current systems, examine them in the context of new developments and determine their suitability and future adaptability. 

And that is the key message of my presentation. Restating: 

What's important is to constantly evaluate the foundations of our current systems, examine them in the context of new developments and determine their suitability and future adaptability. 

Actually, with that restated, it should be possible to say "and in conclusion," "thanks for coming," acknowledge scattered applause and then sit down. 

While brevity is a virtue, it is exceedingly rare among academics. So, with a good breakfast behind you, please allow me to expand, just a bit, on three events or studies I see as important to understanding this era's unique challenges and opportunities, all in line with the theme of 
evaluation. 

II. Body of the Speech

And he asked the question, "Is there anything in history that would suggest parallel implication to this one?" He looked back and found one. From the middle to the end of the last century, we had a similar revolution ... we moved from steam power to electric power; from the steam engine to the dynamo. And Dr. David and his colleagues looked at a 50-year period in the trade, professional and popular press. They read everything that was published. They came up with a list of interesting conclusions and implications. 

It takes two generations for revolutions to really have impact. Why? Dr. David said large systems are inherently stable. They don't change rapidly. Friends, we are halfway through the first generation of this revolution, this information, digital revolution. If we think we have seen change up to this point, watch out for the next half. 

The second implication he drew from this study was that when organizations invest in the technology, they think they bought into the revolution. The reality, he said, is that buying into the hardware or software represents only 10 percent of the investment that's necessary to participate in the revolution. He said 40 percent of the investment is the cost of the training of human beings to use the new technology. And 50 percent of the costs are re-ordering and organizing the organization to adapt to the technology. Many of you have assistants who probably are authorized through their computer on their desk to access any piece of information in your organization, but they have no power to act on it. 

The organizational structure we have today in the corporate community is based on the last revolution, not the next one. 

Dr. David would say that 50 percent of the costs are reordering the work flow in existing organizations. The question today is, "Has your organization moved beyond investment in technology to the most costly and perhaps the most important elements, people and work flow?" 

We know when this revolution started. February 13, 1936. How do we know it started then? Because that is the day they turned on the ENIAC at the University of Pennsylvania, which was three blocks from where my office was for 15 years in Philadelphia. 

A friend of mine, Isaac Auerbach, recently passed away. He was in the room when they turned the machine on. I remember talking with Isaac and I said, "It must have been very exciting. There you were at the very beginning of the computer revolution." 

He said, "Michael it was really an incredibly boring job. I was a graduate assistant and we didn't know it was going to work. I was just working to get through my degree." And 40 years later, he said, "By the way, you don't know when you are at the beginning of a revolution." 

Isaac Auerbach's entire career spans the history of computing, and his passing away two years ago was a deep sorrow for me. 

When I speak with an FDU student, a computer science major or nearly any major, a youngster, an 18 year old, I'll ask the question, as some of you were probably asked the classic question ... some of you with a little gray hair ... "You remember when there wasn't a TV?" Yeah, I remember, my family didn't have a TV. 

Now I ask the question, "Remember when there wasn't a computer?" And they don't remember. It was always there. 

And so we have the mindset, particularly among computer science students who say, "Define the problem tightly enough and give me enough memory, and I can solve it." Anything is possible. So contrast Isaac Auerbach who didn't know it was going to work with a student today who says "Give me enough memory, define the problem, and I can solve it." It's a world of difference, friends. 

Who is Marc Andreessen? Marc Andreessen was a University of Illinois sophomore who wrote a little program called Mosaic, which the University of Illinois copyrighted, and then he got a little bright idea and went off and started his own company called Netscape. 

How long ago was Marc Andreessen a college sophomore? Nine years ago. The intersection of Marc Anderrsen and Isaac Auerbach represents the halfway point of this revolution, the passage from first generation to second. The acceleration effect of information of applications of technology and the change of organizations has just started. And if you think you have seen a whirlwind of activity, you ain't seen nothing yet. 

Are you aware of a book called Exploiting the Killer App? I like it very much. It discusses the applications that transform organizations. I highly recommend you read it. It provides a series of rules and laws about transforming organizations through new applications. 

One of my favorite rules states that organizations should "hire the children"; hire the children because they view the technological issues completely differently than we do today. 

"Well," you say, "that doesn't make any sense." Let me quote USA Today, April 30, 1999. "Thousands of teenagers are moving into the high-tech industry, working for others or even starting their own companies. The computer and data processing industry employed 29,000 people between the ages of 16 and 19 last year, up from 5,000 in 1994, according to estimates by the Department of Labor. 

"Teenagers are being hired as Web page consultants, network administrators and computer programmers. Several factors are contributing to this trend - one such factor is a shortage of skilled workers, which makes clients and companies eager to hire people with the necessary skills. Another cause of the trend is an increase in the number of home computers, which has allowed many of today's teenagers to begin using computers at a very early age." 

Are you aware of what Manpower, Inc. has just started this September? They have a pilot program in which they have a year-long training program for 2,000 junior high school students. And if these junior high school students complete the next nine months of training, they are guaranteed a minimum of $26,000 a year for part-time work through each year of high school. Hire the children, friends. 

It has become apparent to us, in this unique era, that attracting, maintaining and sustaining human resources is the foundation of 
organizational success. We know that now. Are you aware of the landmark research by Marcus Buckingham and the Gallop Organization? Buckingham and Gallop identified 12 core elements for attracting and keeping the best employees. The elements evolved from interviews with more than 1 million workers over the past 25 years. They are: 

1. Do I know what is expected of me at work? 
 2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need? 
 3. Do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day? 
 4. In the last week, have I been recognized for good work? 
 5. Does my superior seem to care about me? 
 6. Does anyone at work encourage my development? 
 7. Do my opinions seem to count? 
 8. Does my company's mission make my work seem important? 
 9. Are my co-workers committed to quality work? 
 10. Do I have a best friend at work? 
 11. In the last six months, have I talked with someone about my progress? 
 12. At work, have I had opportunities to learn and grow? 

Notice what's not on the list - money. That citation is from a publication just released this May: Marcus Buckingham's First Break all the Rules. 

To what extent is your organization addressing or aware of this foundation research and information? 

We live life forward, but we often learn about it backward. We've heard thousands of predictions looking forward about this new millennium. But friends, it's frankly easy to make predictions, especially when people forget who said them. It's harder to be accurate. I believe it is very important to look backward and to use studies and research to draw implications - realistic, modest implications about what's going to happen next year, or in the next century. 

Restating the theme of my presentation, we must constantly evaluate the foundations of our current systems, examine them in the context of new developments and determine their suitability and future adaptability. In the spirit of evaluation I am going to look back at these three studies and say, "Are there implications?" And I am only going to offer two. 

The reality is that we all carry baggage, baggage that perhaps should be jettisoned with the turn of this calendar. Perhaps in a new millennium, it is time for a new educational mandate and resulting new organizational actions. 

The first implication of the studies and the era we are in is that it is a time for a redefinition of what it means to be educated. Why? We have a 2000-year-old model of what it means to be educated. And what's its foundation? It's foundation is owning knowledge. Owning information. 

Everyone has been schooled in the same manner starting from grade one. We walked into a room, we sat in rows and someone stood up and gave us information. They judged us for the next 12 years on whether we were educated by our ability to give that information back. We call those tests. 

And you take more tests, you finish courses, and one day you wake up and you get a degree that certifies you as being educated. It's a 2000-year-old model called the Aristotelian tradition. What happens, however, if you come into an era in which there is too much information to learn it all. Does that mean you can't be educated? By the old model, yes. 

Derreck DeSolo Price, in his book, Science Since Babylon, asks the question, "In a real human way, how much information is there in the world?" Price looked at Chemical Abstracts, a publication that annotates articles in chemistry, physics and the physical sciences. And he suggested that by around 1863, there was so much new information being published in the field of chemistry that a human being - reading eight hours a day, six days a week - could not read it all. And we are 100 years plus later. It's gotten worse. 

I have my "to read" pile. Do you have one of those too? Faithfully, every six months I take the bottom half and throw it away to make room for the other things I am going to read when I have time. 

We need, I think, to redefine what it means to be educated in this new era. You can't make a challenge without offering a solution. I suggest there are three elements to the new definition of an individual who is considered educated in this culture and society: 

1. understanding information organization systems and understanding how knowledge is organized; 
 2. the ability to find a specific piece of information when you need it; and 
3. the ability to synthesize information to solve a problem or generate a 
new idea. 

Now, I am not abandoning the foundation of knowledge we should have. I am particularly fond of the mathematical base. But the reality is, a truly educated person will know how knowledge is organized, be able to find information when he or she needs it and be able to synthesize that to generate a new idea or solve a problem. I believe that is at the core of the era in which we are in. 

The second implication, I believe, is that an organization must aspire to most desired employer status. This means understanding and adapting Gallop's research for attracting, sustaining and retaining the talent pool. It means rigorous employee selection. It means viewing that which is important through the eyes of the employee, not only the eyes of the organization. 

It's critically important to look at the problem through the eyes of the individual whose behavior you want to influence. Here's an example. A group of adolescent girls have just discovered lipstick. Every morning before school starts, they would go into the restroom, put lipstick on and laugh. And then they would kiss the mirror. And there were lip prints on the mirror. They thought it was funny. They were so cool. 

But the principal didn't think it was cool. She was enraged. She went back to her office and wrote a regulation saying, "It is against the rules at this school to kiss the mirror." 

The next morning there were new lip prints on the mirror. She was further enraged and brought all female students together in an assembly and said that this reflects on the character of their parents, their family and their heritage and that it was disgusting to kiss the mirror. The next 
morning there were still new lip prints on the mirror. 

A wise teacher said to the principal, "I'll take care of it." She got three young girls and brought them into the restroom and said, "I just want to tell you why it's a regulation to not kiss the mirror. It's because it's so hard to clean." She said, "I've asked Mrs. Smith to come in and show you how hard it is to clean." So Mrs. Smith walks in with a bottle of soap and a long handle brush and proceeds to dip the brush in the toilet and clean the mirror with it. 

Nobody kissed the mirror any more. 

You must always look at the problem through the eyes of the individuals whose behavior you want to affect. 

Regarding issues of most desired employer status, we should be asking the question, "To what extent do the priorities of employees align with the priorities of the organization and how can we get them together?" 

Employee selection, retention and training are critical. From the eyes of this era's employees, education, training, personal and professional growth and the opportunity for promotion within the organization are of great importance. Look at the Gallop list. 

Successful organizations understand the significant return on investment for employee education and training. And, in fact, I'd suggest to you the most significant idea I'd like you to remember is that, in this unique era, education is not peripheral to the business of any organization. It is fundamental to the success of the business. 

I suggest we in higher education understand and are prepared to address as well as respond as partners with you to this unique challenge. 

I know that FDU is prepared to partner with you. We are prepared to be the foundation of our partners' bridges to survival and success.  Bridges are very interesting concepts, both physically and intellectually. They are based on strong foundations. They connect organizations of great strength. They also span the mediocre. They are pathways through an era that offers new challenges and new opportunities. 

III. Conclusion

The new millennium complex has contributed to a culture that expects change - and that is important. Awareness of the need for adaptability, facility and agility is critical to survival and success. 

When you speak of the next millennium, you imply that there's a world of change about to take place, which is saying nothing more than tomorrow will be different from today. That isn't a bad attitude. Maybe to help us always be prepared for significant changes we can propose another imperial or papal intervention to radically adjust the calendar to create a new millennium every decade or so. That way, on a cyclical basis, we all could anticipate, expect and be prepared for major change. 

Since there is no longer a Roman Emperor, I've sent the proposal to Pope John Paul II and anxiously await his response. If for some inexplicable reason, the Pontiff fails to consider this logical solution, we will have to make due with these numbers, knowing that they hold no magical doorway to the future. Our success depends on our ability to respond and adapt moment by moment, in the face of sometimes revolutionary developments. 

The timekeeping is irrelevant. For our lives are made up of years that mean nothing, but moments that mean all. Let's ignore the year and seize the moment. 

Thank you. 
 

 
 
FDU · news · campuses · administration · help