The Myth of Average: Todd Rose at TEDxSonomaCounty

Reviewer: Queenie Lee Host: Welcome to the TEDxSonomaCounty stage, Todd Rose. (Applause) Todd Rose: It's 1952 and the Air Force has a problem. They have good pilots who fly better planes, but they are getting worse results. And they don't know why. For a time they blamed the pilots. They even blamed technology. They finally came to blame the flight instructors. But it turned out that the problem was actually in the cabin. Let me explain. Imagine you are a fighter pilot. You are operating a machine that in some cases can travel faster than the speed of sound, and where the differences between success and failure, sometimes life and death, can be measured in fractions of a second.

If you are a fighter pilot, you know that your performance depends fundamentally on the fit between you and your cockpit. Because, after all, what good is the best technology in the world if you can't access the critical instruments when you need them most? But this presents a challenge for the Air Force. Because obviously the pilots are not the same size. So the question is: how do you design a cabin that can accommodate the most people? For a long time, it was assumed that this could be achieved by designing for the

average

pilot. That almost seems intuitively correct.

If you design something to fit an

average

-sized person, wouldn't it fit most people? It seems right but it is actually wrong. And 60 years ago, an Air Force researcher, Gilbert Daniels, showed the world how wrong this is and what it was costing us. That's how he did it. He studied over 4,000 pilots and measured them on ten dimensions of size, and asked a very simple question: how many of these pilots are average on all ten dimensions? (laughs) Most of them were supposed to be. Do you know how many there really were? Zero. Gilbert Daniels showed that there is no such thing as an average driver.

Instead, what he discovered was that each pilot had what we call an irregular size profile. Good? It means that no one is equal in all dimensions. And this makes sense. Just because you're the tallest person doesn't mean you're the heaviest, it doesn't mean you have broader shoulders or a longer torso. But this is complicated because if each pilot has an irregular size profile and you design a cockpit on average, you literally haven't designed it for anyone. Then the Air Force realized they had a problem. And his response was bold. They banned the average. (Laughter) Which means that, in the future, they refused to buy fighter jets whose cockpit was designed for an average-sized pilot.

And instead, they demanded that the companies that built these planes design them to the limit of the size dimensions. Meaning that instead of designing for, say, an average height, they wanted a cockpit that could accommodate the shortest pilot and the tallest pilot as much as the technology would allow. Now, the companies that made these planes, as you can imagine, were not happy, right? They argued, pushed and said that it will be impossible or at least incredibly expensive to build a flexible cabin. But once they realized that the Air Force was not going to give in, suddenly, it was possible.

And it turned out it wasn't that expensive. And in fact, they made great strides by leveraging simple solutions that we all take for granted in our daily lives, like adjustable seats. And as a result, the Air Force not only improved the performance of the pilots it already had, it dramatically expanded its talent pool. And today we have the most diverse group of fighter pilots that has ever existed. But here's the thing: many of our best pilots would never have fit in an average-designed cockpit. So most of us have never sat in the cockpit of a $150 million fighter jet, right?

But we have all sat in the classroom. And I would say (Laughter) (Applause). I would say these are the cockpits of our economy, and I think we all know we have some problems. We're spending more money than ever, but we're getting worse results. Whether we're talking about declining math and science test scores or our high school dropout crisis. You probably know that in this country we have over 1.2 million high school dropouts every year. What you may not know is that at least 4% of those dropouts are known to be intellectually gifted. That means we are losing more than 50,000 of our brightest minds every year.

So we know we have a problem. But do we know why? Until now, we have been content to blame the students. We blame the teachers. We even blame the parents. But here's the thing... I think about the Air Force example and can't help but wonder: how much of this problem is simply due to poor design? This is what I mean. Even though we have one of the most diverse countries in the history of the world, and even though we are in the 21st century, we still design our learning environments, like textbooks, for the average student. Oh really.

We call it age appropriate. And we think it's good enough. But of course, it's not. I mean, think about it. What does it mean to design for an average student? Because a student is not one-dimensional, like one who strives to be gifted. Students vary on many dimensions of learning, just as they vary on dimensions of size. Here are some obvious ones. And just like size, each student, each one of them, has an irregular learning profile. That is, they have strengths, they are average in some things and they have weaknesses. We all do it. Even geniuses have weaknesses.

But... if the example of the fighter pilot has taught us anything, it is this. If you design those learning environments on average, chances are you haven't designed them for anyone. So, it's no wonder we have a problem. We have created learning environments that, because they are designed average, cannot do what we expected them to do, which is nurture individual potential. But let's think about what that could really cost us. Because each student has an uneven learning profile, it means that averaging hurts everyone, even the best and brightest. Even for them, design, on average, destroys talent in at least two ways.

First of all, it makes your talent a liability. We all know children like that. So incredibly gifted in one area that their educational environment cannot challenge them. We also know what happens. They get bored and a surprisingly high number of them drop out of school. The second way that design, on average, destroys talent is that it means that its weakness will make it difficult for us to see, much less nurture, its talent. We all know kids like that too. Like the kid who has a talent for science but is a below-average reader. Because our science textbooks assume that all children read at grade level, this child is in trouble.

Because for her, science class is first and foremost a reading test. And it's doubtful we'll ever see what he's truly capable of. Now, it is one thing that our technology does not allow us to do anything more than normal. But another thing is when technology changes and we can do more, but we don't realize it. That's where we are today. In recent years, education, like the rest of society, has gone digital. If you don't believe me, consider this fact: American public schools are one of the largest buyers of iPads in the world. Good? So the question is not do you want the technology?

It's here. You've already paid for it. The question is: what do you want it to be? And this is where it really gets exciting. Right now we have the opportunity to use this technology to create learning environments that are so flexible that they can truly nurture the potential of each individual. Now, you might think that sounds expensive, right? It need not be. In fact, we can come a long way, we can make great strides with simple solutions that we take for granted in our daily digital lives. Here I'm thinking about basic things like language translation, reading support, vocabulary, you know, even the ability of a machine to pronounce a word for you or read a passage if you want.

Basic things. But while these are simple solutions, you'll be surprised how big of an impact they really have on people's lives. I know, the first time I saw it happen. A few years ago I was observing a fourth grade classroom and they were participating in a study in which we were testing the effectiveness of a new digital science curriculum. Now, I'll be the first to say that this new digital version was not elegant. In fact, it was quite basic. What it had going for it, however, was that it didn't assume that every student in that classroom was reading at grade level.

Now, one of my favorite things about this particular class was the teacher. Because he hated technology. And I know this because it's the first thing he said to me when I met her. And my response was, "Okay, why did you sign up for a technology study?" She told me that she was willing to go through this in the hopes that she could help a child in her class. Her name was Billy. And Billy, as she told me, had a mind for science. But he was one of those kids who read below average. And she hoped this would come to her now while she's still learning to read.

Now, I have to say, that really made me nervous. Because like I said, the technology was pretty basic. And I didn't want to disappoint her. So, you can imagine how pleasantly surprised I was halfway through the study, when the teacher comes up and says, "Hey, guess what?" Not only has Billy adapted to the technology, but I'm starting to see an improvement in his performance. So that was good. But nothing, nothing prepared me for what I saw when I returned to that classroom at the end of the study. Billy had become the de facto smartest kid in class.

Oh really. And everyone knew it. In fact, the first thing I saw when I walked in the door were six or seven kids crowded around Billy's desk asking him questions about homework. And it turns out he had answers. The thing is, the only thing we really gave Billy and his classmates was the learning equivalent of adjustable seats. And in return, we got a glimpse of Billy's talent. And sure, they might say, "Well, look, that's a kid in a classroom," but sure, that's a kid in a classroom. And isn't that really what it's about? Foster individual potential.

Jonas Salk was an individual and he cured polio. What if Billy was the next Jonas Salk? What if the cure for cancer is in his mind? Who knows? But I do know that we came dangerously close to losing his talent before he even left grade school. Not because he didn't understand science, but because he was still learning to read. And that's what I mean when I say that simple solutions can have a profound impact on people. So the real question for me is how can we get these adjustable learning seats into the hands of every student as quickly as possible without spending more money?

In this sense, I believe that the Air Force has given us the formula for success. What happens if we prohibit averaging in education? We know that it destroys talent. Instead, what if we demanded that the companies that sell these materials in our classrooms design them not according to the average of learning dimensions but to the limits? It would be a bold move. It would certainly send a strong signal to the market: the game has changed. But believe me, if we do this, we will not only increase the performance of the children in our classrooms today, we will dramatically expand our talent pool.

Because right now there are so many students that we just can't reach because we design on average. Design to the limits and we will reach them and harness your talent. And I have to say that I know, because I was one of those students. Today I am a member of the Harvard faculty. But I also dropped out of high school. It gets better. I dropped out of high school with a 0.9 GPA. (laughs) For those who don't know, that's pretty bad. (Laughs) But here's the thing. I have been at the bottom of our educational system and I have been at the top.

I'm here to tell you that we are wasting a lot of talent at all levels. And for every person like me there are millions who worked just as hard, who had the ability, but who could not overcome the burden of an averagely designed educational environment. And his talent is forever lost to us. The thing is, we really can't afford to lose them. The good news is that it is no longer necessary. I tell you that we have a unique opportunity, right now, to fundamentally reimagine the very foundations of our institutions of opportunity like education, in ways that foster the potential of every individual; therefore, expanding our talent pool and making us much more competitive in the world.

We can do this. We know the formula. And it's time we demand it. Thank you. (Applause)