Failure is not tolerated

Middle schoolers in this public school must write a two-page paper on why they failed and what they intend to do about it each time they receive a D or F on a test or project. Then, they must get their parents to sign it along with the teacher, and even the principal if it is a recurring problem.

Why? Because at this school "failure is not tolerated."

The result is that the students get to redo the project or retake the test and the scores are averaged together. Who wins? Sounds like the school does to me.

What exactly does this teach the students? Does it teach them the difference between failing and failure? Does it teach them that failing is part of the success process? Does it teach them that failing can actually lead to success?

Or, does it teach them to fear the prospect of failure? And, when we are afraid to fail, we become afraid to try. And, when we are afraid to try, mediocrity sets in, ambivalence takes over, and apathy becomes our driver.

Edison might have given up if he had to write a two-page paper each time he failed. Steve Jobs may never have pushed through with the Mac II when the original Mac sales were disappointing. Walt Disney would have never found Mickey. And, none of us would be standing right now, let alone walking (because as a baby we become intimately acquainted with failure as we learn to stand and walk).

We tend to think the problem with education is found in grammar, math, and history. I wonder if it is found in the way we treat those we say we care about the most.

houston@figment-consulting.com

Why did Tomorrowland bomb at the box office?

My family and I went to see the Disney movie Tomorrowland yesterday (sounds funny when you say it). It had been on our radar since we first heard it was coming out. And, even after all of the negative reviews, and the narrative that it bombed at the box office, we wanted to see it.

For us, it was one of the best movies we have ever seen -- not because of the acting, or the visuals, or the actors and actresses involved. That was not our purpose in seeing it. We were attracted to it for other reasons.

So, why did it bomb at the box office? According to others it was a myriad of factors that included:

* Secrecy is not always a good idea -- the premise of it is hard to explain in a sentence or a 30-second ad because of the story's complex mythology.

* George Clooney is not a box-office draw -- the King of Hollywood doesn't sell tickets in proportion to people's fascination with him.

* Tougher-than-expected competition -- Poltergeist, Mad Max, and Pitch Perfect 2.

* Memorial Day openings are not a license to print money -- Not even a four day window can save a poorly made movie.

* The "select" Thursday preview -- only 701 theaters offered the movie on Thursday evening out of 3,972 venues overall on Friday.

Other articles seem to share the sentiment of this one in some form or another. They place the failure on marketing, Clooney, competition, or some other idea related to the script or quality of the movie itself.

I wonder though if they could be wrong? Perhaps they have missed the real reason why it did not meet expectations at the box office?

Perhaps the real reason it was not accepted by the masses could be found in the movie itself. As I sat there watching it yesterday, it occurred to me during one pivotal scene -- I bet this is why the public turned away from it. I caught myself contemplating the subtle difference this movie has when compared to the others -- one that is difficult to accept when one is not ready for it.

houston@figment-consulting.com