“I have to disagree with Friedman's analysis of science enducation in America. I agree that grade school kids in America aren't moving along as quickly as they ought to in these subjects; however, as a scientist myself I see so many people (Americans too!) getting their PhDs in science. I had come to the conclusion that people just get their PhD nowadays for no better reason than that they don't want to go out and find a job. So if we truly are graduating fewer and fewer scientists (especially PhDs), then perhaps PhDs are just getting stupider and less interested? I'm not sure what to think.”
“Friedman does a really good job describing the global economy and if he can be faulted in this writing it would be for overusing the phrase "flat world". He comes across as being very proud of having coined the term, if indeed he did.”
“A very good book and it worth reading. ”
“i found the book to be too repetitive. towards the end, the content is more or less the same. just that friedman is trying to prove his point by citing examples.”
“if you read the first 150 pages of the book, you read the whole book.”
“Good, worth reading book, good style, but I was confused that for example depicting India author didn't even mention about poverty. It was strange, he only focused on positive sides of the globalization. ”
“I find Thomas Friedman's understanding of the world's economy and how we are all so intertwined and interdependent more clear than most. I enjoy his columns every Sunday AM and listening to him on Meet the Press. He can be quite opinionated, but on the topic of the Middle East, he understands their history like no other. It's only natural that I would enjoy "The World is Flat" and look forward to "Hot,Flat, and Crowded."”
“I am just starting this book and haven't yet made it through the first chapter. His writing style seems conversational and easy to read, which is a plus. It does bother me, though, that in his first few paragraphs he perpetrates the myth that Columbus proved or was trying to prove the world was not flat. This knowledge had been recorded as far back as 350 BC by Aristotle and demonstrated by Eratosthenes around this time, and his calculations were more accurate than those of Columbus. The other thing that bothers me already is my sense of Friedman's worldview. While I understand he is reflecting on the way things are, he is promoting that the way things are should lead to his almost deterministic view of the future. He also explicitly says the flat world is a metaphor and does not mean flat in terms of income equality or equity, rather he is speaking about access. Well, income inequality is specifically because of lack of access for the people on the bottom. So, what we may rather have here are two planes: one for the connected haves and another for the remaining 99% percent of the world. This is not the flat world Friedman is depicting. Anyway, I guess I need to get past chapter one before I ramble on for too long.”
“to prepare for 21st century (Paul kennedy)”
