The Association of American Colleges and Universities defines a “liberal education” in the following way:

Liberal Education is an approach to learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change. It provides students with broad knowledge of the wider world (e.g. science, culture, and society) as well as in-depth study in a specific area of interest. A liberal education helps students develop a sense of social responsibility, as well as strong and transferable intellectual and practical skills such as communication, analytical and problem-solving skills, and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings.

This is clearly a tall order, but one which employers recognize and endorse. It is not an education which is theoretical and impractical, but directly applicable to students’ lives.

A national survey conducted for the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) in 2010 by Hart Research Associates, asked 302 executives of companies with more than 25 employees what they believed were important learning outcomes or goals for student graduates. The results indicated that employers want more emphasis on a broad range of skills as well as in depth knowledge of a specific area. They also placed great importance on students’ ability to apply their knowledge to the real world and to conduct research and evidence based analyses. What follows are a few of the findings of that study. They indicate that colleges are already doing many things well, but that employers see room for improvement as colleges prepare the employees of the future.

• 25% of respondents feel that colleges and universities are doing a good job of preparing graduates for the workplace.
• 90% are asking employees to take on more responsibilities and use broader skills than in the past.
• 84% believe that it would be helpful to require students to complete some type of senior project.
• 81% see importance in students’ research skills and ability to analyze evidence.
• 89% look for the ability to communicate effectively – orally and in writing.
• 81% would like to see increased focus on critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills.
• 79% endorse increased emphasis on real-world experience through internships or other external experiences
• 75% emphasize ethical decisions and their connections to choices and actions
• 71% see the need for teamwork skills and the ability to collaborate with diverse groups
• 70% recognize innovation and creativity
• 63% see the need for the ability to work with numbers and understand statistics.
• 52% would like to see more emphasis on civic knowledge, civic participation, and community engagement.

Clearly, employers see the need for some improvement in colleges’ preparation of students for the workplace. Most colleges are continually working to update and improve their approaches to the development of these skills – often through innovative programs across the curriculum. However, students themselves can consider their own paths and individual emphasis on these important, broad skills. The conversations that you, as a college parent, have with your student about his education – and the workplace – can help your student explore these vital connections that lead to that important “liberal education.”

When a blockbuster deal happens, a lot of people get excited. The press is all over it, money comes pouring into startups in search of the next one, people quit jobs and school to get in the game. It’s a gold rush.

But there’s another reaction that I have heard a lot in the past few weeks that is quite different. It is “why not me?” The title of this post is from an email between me and an entrepreneur I know who will go nameless.

It sums up the emotion so well for me.

Startups are hard. They require great sacrifice from everyone. They are stressful and fail more often than they succeed.

And when you’ve been toiling away month after month, year after year, with no pot of gold in sight, it can be hard to watch that billion dollar deal go down. It’s a punch to the gut. It hurts.

I’d love to say to all of you who are feeling that pain that your time will come. But most likely it will not. That’s the way this game is played.

Over the history of the institutional VC business (the past 40 years) the number of companies started every year that turn out to be worth billions sustainably is in the tens not the hundreds. If you are looking for a billion dollar check in the startup game, you are playing for lottery odds.

So if you are doing the startup game for money, and lots of it, you are in for a plate full of frustration. It must be for more than that. It must be for the love of the game, a passion for what you are bringing to market, and for the chance that you will hit paydirt. But it is a lot more likely that you will watch someone else hit the big payday than hitting it yourself. And that sucks.

Editor’s note: Hemant Taneja is managing director at General Catalyst. Follow him on Twitter @htaneja.

Every time I pick up my iPhone lately, I’ve been asking myself: Why do we call this a “phone”?

If my “phone” habits are any indicator, we shouldn’t be calling this a phone at all. On the iPhone, I don’t like taking phone calls. I’ve moved the green phone application button away from the bottom tray and replaced it with other apps I use frequently. If Apple allowed us to actually delete the phone app, I’d bet some of us would do it right away. In our evolving relationship with mobile phones, I wonder when we are going to stop calling it a “phone.” It’s semantics, but the words are important and affect our mindset. If we’re using precise language, these devices are really computers with data-collecting sensors and processors that happen to have voice capabilities as a feature.

Part of the mindset problem is unfortunately highlighted by the carriers business models and pricing plans. Carriers charge 80% of monthly fees for voice and the rest for data when, in fact, for many of us our usage patterns are actually the inverse. As a result, carriers segment our data usage and stifle innovation and worse, consumer adoption, at the application layer. If you’re not lucky enough to be “grandfathered” into an unlimited data plan, you have to monitor your data pull for fear of paying exorbitant overage fees.

This is the result of a structural issue in the wireless carrier industry. The carriers are running a series of systems today — a voice network, a voicemail system, a SMS platform, and a data network — when the reality is that all they truly need is a data network with “phone” as well as asynchronous messaging applications that already exist. The carriers’ legacy architecture is artificially placing a large cost on consumers and, worse, stifling adoption at the application layer.

There is too much pressure on these antiquated pricing models. For instance, will applications who monetize our usage end up paying a carrier like an 800-number would? Or, could applications subsidize our data costs in different ways? For instance, if I’m on Twitter for 80% of my mobile usage, which goes against my data plan, would Twitter offer some payment back to the carrier? Or, could an application pay me directly for using it after a certain threshold, which I could use to offset my monthly costs? There are more questions than answers here, but it will be interesting to see which carrier has the foresight to work with handset makers and application developers to make this more sustainable for end-users.

There’s much that needs fixing here. The handset makers are doing their part. The app developers are doing great work. We are all paying through the nose for these great experiences and utilities. But, the party won’t last. The carriers have to carry their weight. The first thing we have to do is stop thinking about a device like the iPhone as a “phone.” It’s really a computer that just happens to make calls over cell towers. And, when we start using the right language, we will start to change our mindset, our demands, and hopefully, the carriers will take notice. In fact, they may have no choice but to do so.

In my view, the root problem is that there is no competition in the wireless carrier industry. They have no incentive to properly keep up with innovation in the hardware platforms and the application ecosystem. It would be nice to see entrepreneurs focus on disrupting this industry. Conceivably, a company (or set of companies) could emerge to redefine the device away from being a “phone” to something new.

My gut tells me that if someone could offer a $50/month plan with the core set of applications including messaging (voice, data, and video) off of a data-centric network, it could present a great value proposition for consumers. Consumers don’t want to think about blowing through their data plans every time they download a video or upload a photo. I don’t think building such a company has to be very capital-intensive proposition, given all the online mechanisms that available to acquire customers and vast ecosystem of applications that already exist.

What do you all think? How can we force the carriers to change or build something new?

By Seth Levine, contributor

I love the start-up world. I love working with founders and young companies. I love the excitement of working on business ideas that are new and different. I love seeing the success that often comes from this hard work. I’ve never before in my professional life seen a time of such innovation and creativity. At Foundry we see more business plans now than we ever have. And, what’s more, more of those business plans are really interesting (and fundable).

It goes without saying that I love the business of venture capital. I love helping entrepreneurs work on their ideas. And I love helping companies figure out how to become as successful as possible. I love the challenge of trying to figure out the next great investment and the energy that comes from working with amazing and creative people.

But I’m worried and I wanted to get it out there.

I’m worried that in all the hype, in all the “we launched our company” events, and “we changed our name again” parties, and “we redid our website – come celebrate!” shindigs, and the SXSW parties, and the hoodies, that we’re losing sight a bit of the really hard work that is creating and building a business.

I’m worried that in offering term sheets after a single 60 minute meeting, and in pricing early stage deals like they were already late-stage successes and most egregiously by constantly running around self promoting and self aggrandizing, VCs are falling prey to a cult of personality about themselves and forgetting that their jobs are to help companies be successful. And as far as I can tell, very few seem to believe what I hold as a fundamental tenet of the venture industry, which is that entrepreneurs come first, not VCs.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a good party (not to mention a good hoodie!). And I recognize the reasons to celebrate important company milestones and for industry events like CES and SXSW. And in bringing a bunch of customers, prospects and partners together at a social event. But I feel like I’m hearing less of “did you see XYX company’s great new product” and more “are you going to so and so’s party at ad:tech?” I’m not exaggerating when I tell you that I’ve received 30 invites to SXSW parties but not a single invite to a panel session at the conference. And when someone tells me that someone is “killing it” (a phrase I think I hear 10 times a day these days), more often than not they mean “doing the job they were hired for.”

I hear more and more stories about companies making a pitch to a VC and having an offer before they walk out of the room (entrepreneurs: do you really want to work with someone who puts so little thought into their investment process that they would do this?). And the way VCs talk about the companies they work with has clearly shifted to be substantially more VC-centric (lots of use of “I” and taking credit for company success as something they themselves created rather than participated in or helped with).

And, of course, much has been written about rising valuations and the potential risk this poses to early-stage companies. Not to mention the increasing popularity of the “party round,” where many VCs participate but no one actually takes ownership (also not good for entrepreneurs, in my opinion).

It feels like a lot of this is for external show: “I’m cool; I run a shit hot start-up; I saw [insert big name technorati here] at our company party last night. I’m in such and such company with [long list of other investors] and doesn’t that make me awesome. I’m awesome I’m awesome – look at me!”

And not really about building great products or great businesses.

So by all means, lets keep having fun. But let’s also remember that the goal is to build great companies. And please – my fellow venture capitalists – can we take it down a few notches and remember that our role is a supporting one. If you wanted to be the star you should have become an entrepreneur.

Seth Levine (@sether) is a managing director with Colorado-based venture capital firm Foundry Group

• Office Email: Google Apps
• Customer Relationship Management: Salesforce
• Data Storage: Backblaze
• Payment Processing: PayPal
• Storage/Backup/Virtualization: Dropbox
• Social Media Management: Facebook & HootSuite
• Accounting: QuickBooks
• Billing: QuickBooks

Small Business Apps