Dressing up to move up

"A man should look as if he had bought his clothes with intelligence, put them on with care, and then forgotten all about them." 

In a day and age when office dress codes are almost non-existent especially for working men, the advice above, courtesy of Hardy Amies, is one that many self-respecting male professionals and soon-to-be graduates would be well-advised to heed. Not just because the market for serious romantic relations is much trickier these days (due to well-documented preference shifts in favor of postponing marriage for income and personal growth, as well as the complications arising from less stringent relationship arrangements), but more so because of the generally bad state of the job market. 

If there's any good the "casual revolution" brought about by the dot-com boom (or more appropriately, regression) of the 1990s, it is the fact that looking clean and presentable has become a source of comparative advantage and, consequently, a subtle yet powerful signal of one's fitness as a worker or as a partner. (The simple logic here is that being well-kempt tells the other party how seriously you take her and whatever the situation is.) The "casual revolution" has also unintentionally helped those who are poorer and less physically attractive, by virtue of the now-greater marginal value of affordable, accessible services like good tailoring and having one's hair cut. From a microeconomics perspective, two observations:

The commonness of unrefined sartorial sensibilities has made dressing up a less costly endeavor in terms of net gains from invested time and effort (bigger payoffs and more positive externalities, aside from getting compliments);

The prices of the services mentioned relative to personal incomes have not gone up appreciably over time.

The key, of course, to maintaining the value of dressing up these days is to keep its rewards discreet. After all, too many market entrants, as any economics student knows, eliminates any comparative advantage. 

A modest proposal

I'm not a basketball expert, but given the lack of success Philippine national teams have had in many years, I would hazard that it's time to seriously consider adopting an unorthodox playing style anchored on two things: full court press defense, and  spread offense (a.k.a. Phoenix Suns' "seven-seconds-or-less," circa 2004-2006). Such a system, of course, presents its own set of challenges, but when mastered, I believe, should make the RP teams a frequent dark horse--or "favored underdog," if there is such a word--in international tournaments.

The most compelling argument for choosing to play this way, I think, is the RP teams' very obvious height disadvantage compared to just about every other national squad (except Sri Lanka(?)). There's a basketball truism stating that "you can't teach height (or length or wingspan, depending on the variation you've heard)--which is exactly the case with the Philippine squads. The tallest player fielded in the 2009 Asian Championships, for example, stood at just 6'9" or 210 cm (Mick Pennisi). That team's average height was, in turn, just  6'4" (194 cm). (The average NBA player stands at 6'6" / 201 cm.) In basketball, that translates to giving up more shots, blocks, and rebounds to opposing squads. I'm not able to find more statistics to support this point at the moment, but I'm confident that there likely is a strong correlation between a team's offensive and defensive strength (percentage of shots made and opponents' corresponding field goal percentage) and the presence of taller players.

On the other hand, the relative smallness of our players means that we have more point guards and wingmen, and therefore:

1. Are suited to playing uptempo basketball;

2. And can potentially defend inbounds, passing lanes, and half courts better than most other teams. 

The second proposition was explored in depth by Malcolm Gladwell. While Gladwell's story is more of an extreme example that seems to advocate shortcuts in place of proper skills coaching, there is no denying the potential effectivity that frequent, well-executed half court stops can have on teams built like RP's.  On the offensive side, we already have the right personnel-- mainly, quick and athletic players who can run persistently and shoot from anywhere. The question, of course, is if the players will be disciplined and strong enough to constantly pressure opponents into passing turnovers while pushing the tempo of games. 

Why aren't there more Filipino academicians?

As I begin my pursuit of an academic career, everyday I find myself more surprised by how few recent graduates do the same.

The advantages, to me at least, seem obvious: Compared to the "corporate world," the academe is a much more hospitable and meritocratic workplace, despite the occasional and unavoidable politics--which, to begin with, is already muted relative to other work environments. Opportunities for personal growth abound, thanks to more convenient access to training programs, graduate schools, and a constant exposure to youth and ideas.  For those who hate routine and are motivated and intellectually curious (who usually would be the student leadership and academic awardees in every batch), few careers can rival the social value and fulfillment of one in teaching and research. (There are,  of course, monetary considerations, but my hunch is that a beginning lecturer/instructor's pay shouldn't diverge much from most entry-level, private sector salaries, especially on a per-hour basis.) 

A few thoughts of mine from a year ago, in a published op-ed piece:

"Surprisingly, there isn’t a lack of avenues for scientific work in the Philippines. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Asia’s oldest and most respected agricultural research center, is based in this country. There are publicly funded science high schools teaching advanced math and science across the Philippines. Scholarships for science degrees abound. There’s even a local biotech consulting firm!"

"That opportunities to engage in science persist despite generally unfavorable economic circumstances clearly point to our science problem’s deeper, multifaceted roots." 

"The lack of the necessary human capital to undertake serious research is compounded by two problems: our students’ generally poor performance in basic science and math, and the “practical” orientation of existing science and engineering programs. Our deficiencies in basic education are well-known and documented, but the other problem is something hardly acknowledged in the academe. I’m referring here to a career mindset most families and science schools cultivate in their graduates: that majoring in science is equivalent to either becoming a doctor, taking a board exam, or ending up as a teacher (which, from most Filipinos’ viewpoint, is tantamount to low pay and status throughout one’s life). With graduate school relegated to last place in the college graduate’s mind, is it anymore surprising why we aren’t making real, substantial gains in developing science-driven industries?"

The last factor--social acceptance--is probably the most powerful, and I surmise it is the primary reason why most high-achieving students prefer to stay away (initially, but to most, perhaps permanently) from the academe. The pressure to land prestigious (and not necessarily well-paid) work --usually as a management trainee or as an obscure analyst in a multinational company--tends to displace most other motivations, even the thought of other possible occupations. Even amid the worst economic conditions worldwide since the Great Depression, the office remains, sadly, a powerful default; the corporation, for its part, persists as an influential employer of talent. This is made worse by the poor condition of the local job market, which does offer sparse attractive alternatives to the corporate way. (And by state policy that advocates exporting labor and promoting low value-added industries.)

What will it take for more skilled Filipinos to reconsider their professional careers, as many in the American financial sector have done recently? Already, I think we can feel the effects of shortages in key professions (meteorologists and teachers, most prominently); my worst fear is that the social costs of being severely undermanned in work areas that create or apply new knowledge will very, very soon emerge to haunt the Philippines--hurricane Katrina-style. (Or bagyong Milenyo-like, as Filipinos would put it.)

Costa Rica as model nation, and an unlikely but essential partnership

Costa Rica is an intriguing country.

By traditional standards, it's not among the most prosperous nations in the world: Nearly a fifth of its citizens are classified as poor; inflation has been persistently in double digits over the past decade; its economy, while widely perceived as resilient, is worryingly dependent on tourism and exports; problems on drugs and human trafficking are potential flash points for conflict with neighboring countries, especially Nicaragua. Yet notwithstanding all these, Costa Rica has been called the "world's happiest place," and appears to be genuinely peaceful and stable.

The case for Costa Rica as a model for development is compelling, and borne out by many reliable indicators. It is consistently among the top five Latin American countries in terms of quality of life, environmental preservation, economic and press freedom, and overall democracy. Per capita GDP is about $11,000, and the country enjoys near-universal functional literacy. (That the United Nations has chosen it as base for its University for Peace, in itself, already speaks volumes about Costa Rica.) In international affairs, it's not viewed as important as a country like Brazil or Venezuela, but there can be no underestimating its success as a welfare state in a part of the world where many others have aspired but failed with similar models of governance. Considering the fact that as recently as the 1980s, it was on the receiving end of IMF assistance and in the 1940s was recovering from civil and world wars, it would be hard not to appreciate. (The name "Costa Rica" was for many years a misnomer, in light of its poverty under Spanish rule in the 19th century.)

Clearly, Costa Rica's state-dominated approach to economics cannot--and should not--be adopted by the Philippines, given the latter's history with government-led industrialization. What the Philippines should "copy" from Costa Rica is its singular focus on human development. Currently, the Philippine government annually spends just between 2 to 3 percent of its GDP on education, and with regard to health outcomes, is in the unenviable company of countries like Myanmar and Russia.

Of course there is no one way to ensuring more Filipinos are provided better education and health care, and simply spending more on both will not eliminate problems of access and quality. Costa Rica, it could be said, was able to make lasting progress on both fronts because of an unlikely partnership between Catholicism and communism.

Somehow in the early parts of the 20th century, Costa Rica saw an alliance form between its communist party and its Catholic church to achieve politically liberal ends--mainly, a strong social security system that remains in place today. I don't see how a similar agreement between Philippine Catholic church groups and progressive elements can be unlikely, particularly in an impending election season. Broadly speaking, the two share a concept of social justice and a critical mass of supporters--what they jointly need to do is hammer on a message and an approach that:

1. Actively communicates inequality issues (land reform, health and education) to the general public in personal (moral, family-oriented) and positive terms

2. Neutralizes disagreement on "hot-button" issues such as death penalty, abortion, and divorce by focusing on common initiatives that strengthen family ties, minimize unwanted pregnancies, and reduce crime (particularly petty crime, in view of their tendency, if unchecked, to lead to more violent crimes--or the "broken windows" phenomenon)

3. Nudges people toward "good citizenship" through novel incentives (e.g. public recognition...and financial reward?)

The nuances of these three aspects are something I have yet to think about more, but in general,
a Costa Rican type of understanding between the Philippine Left and its Christian counterparts could prove to be powerful--and liberating.

Speechwriting as values education

Speechwriting is an inherently difficult, unglamorous, and surprisingly formative work--as I have found out firsthand. 

The main difficulty in speechwriting, obviously, lies in appropriating another person's thoughts and finding the words that will express those thoughts in the speaker's voice. Channeling the speaker's character, I would argue, is always challenging. The final product, after all, needs to be not just informed and persuasive, but "authentic"--in the sense that the audience should feel no disconnect between the speaker and her speech. At best, the speechwriter is simply a sounding board or a practice coach to someone who is already eloquent and well-read; at worst, the speechwriter is expected to be a mind reader. Regardless, speechwriting is a constant test of empathy.

Anonimity, of course, is key to successful speechwriting, and this is why it is not a job for those who aspire to be in the limelight. The speechwriter surrenders credit and credence to her speaker. There are no awards for good speechwriters (though there is a professional organization based in the UK), and, for better or worse, a speechwriter's reputation becomes intertwined with her speaker. Being "just a writer" also means that a speechwriter's work is always subject to the editorial judgment (or plain whims) of the speaker. Those who write speeches professionally know that this is inevitable, but I presume most find themselves surprised at the healthy amount of offense they take when a speaker decides to exercise her right to modify a speech prepared for delivery as she sees fit.  This is natural, and while it is just right to be protective of one's ideas, the greater virtue in this job is tempering that inclination with humility--which is, again, the bedrock of effective speechwriting.

Together, it is the unglamorous and demanding nature of speechwriting that makes it, ultimately, a character-building exercise.  And whether one is preparing a formal address or remarks for an informal gathering, a speechwriter would inevitably find herself reflecting on the promise of a better community, a better country, a better environment, a better world. Doing that on nearly an everyday basis should impact even the most jaded and cynical of persons. (Then again, those who are not very idealistic would probably not be speechwriters in the first place.)

There is a nobility to lending one's intellect and language to someone who truly embodies and gives life to possibilities; there are few things in life as fulfilling as seeing one's words uplift the spirits of many. The gift of tongues is rare and precious, and speechwriters should only be too happy to yield it to those who can wield it to full effect.

Today's links:

Signaling social status in Facebook 

How to be happy with money

The tragedy of commons, an overview

Craigslist's unusual--and highly successful--business model

*This online journal, while mainly a means for the author to practice writing, is intended not just as a "log" of thoughts and personal insights, but a laboratory for exploring ideas and topics (hence the namesake) and a useful consolidation of interesting material found on the Internet.

If you happen to stumble upon this webpage, please feel free to comment or e-mail using the address specified in the "About" section.

So, hello, stranger.