The ability we have to live in our own tiny bubble, completely ignorant of the people who surround us, and the conditions they live in has always come as a surprise to me. Doesn't it bother you to think that we can go from seeing big buildings and beautiful homes to cardboard houses and dirt roads in just 10 minutes? We choose to ignore the reality that most Peruvians live in because as Muhammad Yunus said, we live relatively "untouched" by it. 

Poverty was one of the main reasons that lead me to choosing microcredit loans as the topic for my documentary. And although I didn't know much about micro finance when I first began, I had heard that it was one of the ways to lift people out of poverty. This made me curious to find out how effective it actually is? 

After almost a month of conducting research, and interviewing the clients and entities of micro finance, I've come to understand that microcredit lending is COMPLICATED. It's effective in the sense that it helps mitigate the negative effects of poverty, but in the long run, it's not the solution to poverty, and it doesn't make a poor country any richer. 

On the one hand, it allows people to improve their lifestyles; it gives them the means to buy a cow which will allow them to produce and sell more milk, it gives them the means to afford a safer roof for their family, and an education for their kids, but it doesn´t allow a business to grow to the extent where it generates macro growth for an economy or for the individual himself. 

One of the biggest problems with micro credit lending is that they come with very high INTEREST RATES, generally 30-40 % higher than that of a normal 
loan. This is generally because investing in people with low income is risky for the companies giving the loans, and also because the cost of administrating several small loans is much higher than that of administrating fewer larger loans. Plus, for the most part, the people that receive the loans are in such desperate access to capital that they have no other option but to accept high interest rates. 

Therefore, although microcredit lending does give people who are excluded from the financial system an access to loans, the high interest rates also holds people back from growing their business to its fullest potential. And although banks claim to have the right incentives, from what I've witnessed, I don't believe that the clients well being is always the ultimate focus of the bank, it's money. For the most part, the poor are exploited by multiple banks under the garb of helping, and clients find themselves in a debt cycle, where they keep taking out new loans to try and pay old ones. 

On one of our visits to the clients, we were told by one of the banks consultants that the banks has a certain goal for microcredit finance which they must reach in a year. This goal, however, isn't based off of how many people they help, but rather how much money they make. Plus, one of the clients we interviewed mentioned that at the moment she didn't have any loans with any bank. As soon as the consultant heard this, she tried to pursuade the client to take out another loan without even knowing if the  client really needed one. 

One of the biggest misconceptions of microcredit lending is that it approaches the poorest sector of the economy. Although this does hold some truth, because micro credit loans help the poor, it only gives credit to those who've had a business established for at least 6 months. Thus, my question is: what about the people who are making less than 2 dollars a day and can't afford to even start up a business? What system is out there to help them? Is there an entity willing to take such a risky investment and expect an even smaller return?  

One of the best ways of lifting a countries economy is by decreasing unemployment. Micro credit lending, however, doesn't invest in companies that do so because for the most part, the people working in the business's are the owners themselves or family members. The growth their business's experience is so small that they don't need any more help than they already have. If we want a countries economy to really grow, we need to make investments in small-to-medium sized enterprises, those that are "bigger than a fruit stand, but smaller than a Fortune 100 corporation."

It would be needless to say that microcredit loans have no impact on the poor, because they do; they E M P O W E R entrepreneurship, they I M P R O V E a struggling families lifestyle, and they open doors to new O P P O R T U N I T I E S. But it is very few people who go from owning a fruit stand to owning a large grocery store, and although the current structure of microcredit lending is incapable of eradicating poverty by itself, it's definitely a start, and a system that can and should be improved.  

Are the banks only incentive to give microcredit loans money? Is the economic growth brought forth by microcredit lending sustainable? What can be done to make microcredit loans available to the poorest people in Peru’s population, not just those who can afford to start a business for 6 months? 

Every since I was in first grade I've grown up to believe that learning means sitting in front of a desk and listening to a teacher lecture a class. However, when I became part of the Innovation Academy, I came to understand that there really is no such thing as a "teacher", and if there is, then we're all teachers of our own learning. 

A teacher's job shouldn't be to spill out content, it should be to to create an environment that allows us to take in content. Think about a time in which you didn't understand a math problem and there was no one around to help you. I guarantee that once you finally understood the problem, the concept stuck to you for much longer than when your teacher explained it in class. Why? Because the best way to learn something is by struggling through it. 

Producing my documentary is the perfect example of something Andrea and I have struggled through because we've been given so much independence with it. Thus, there comes moments where we don't know what to do next, or where we're not sure how in depth our work needs to be because there is no one telling us exactly what to do. And although this can be very frustrating at times, I find that this frustration has made me thirsty for knowledge and its allowed me to improve my work in such a way that I would have never done so if I had a rubric to follow. 

A few days ago, Alex and Michelle, founders of Planet of the Kids, traveled down from San Francisco to give us a workshop on design thinking. Up until high school, both siblings attended a private school in Sillicon Valley that enforces project based learning and innovation. 

What I most loved about their workshop was that they replaced the role of a "teacher" that most of us were used to. Throughout the presentation I completely forgot that they were younger than us and that we had just met them, because despite our age difference, I felt I had so much to learn from them. This proves that you don't need a "teacher" to learn, and just like we are all the teachers of our own learning, we can also be the FACILITATORS of other peoples learning regardless of our AGE, RACE, or CULTURE. 

That same day a group of students from Team Academy came to visit us. Team Academy is a University in the Netherlands that believes highly in experiential learning and entrepreneurship. The students in this university travel to different parts of the world in search of market opportunities. They basically learn about business while starting their own; talk about a hands on learning entrepreneurial adventure!

When they first arrived to our class, I honestly thought that they were 25, they were really, really tall. But just like the visit from Alex and Michelle, despite them being older (and much taller than us), we were able to carry out an hour long conversation without much intervention from our "teachers". We learned from them and their program in the same way that they learned from us, and we were able to help them by giving them contacts for their businesses.  

These experiences have taught me that learning doesn't necessarily come from a "teacher", and as I mentioned previously, there really is no such thing as a "teacher". There are however, facilitators of learning. If you think about it, anyone can teach, some people can do it better than others, but just because a "teacher" knows how to teach doesn't mean that the student is actually learning. Transferring knowledge from the mind of a "teacher" to that of  students is a lot harder than it seems. Why? Because knowledge is CONSTRUCTED, not TAUGHT. Knowledge is the gathering of content, experience, and skills, and there is only so much of that which a "teacher" can teach us. 

Therefore, we should take advantage of the experiences that allow us to learn from others, and we should make the effort to experience what we are learning, not simply read about it or hear someone talk about it. We should meet more people like Alex, Michelle, and the Team Academy. We should share what we know with others, and in the process, we can facilitate other peoples learning. 

Last time I checked, if we set our minds to learning something we can learn it. We are the teachers of our own learning, remember? 

As I sat on the plane on Friday and looked back at my JAB experience, I realized that what I learned went far beyond the conference's initial focus. 

Over the past week I was given the privilege to meet and work with 14 people from around the world, from places like Lebanon, Switzerland, Japan, the Kingdom of Swaziland, India, Jordan, Columbia, Greece, etc. 

To be completely honest, the first day I was really scared because I felt that I was surrounded by fourteen miniature Einstein's, and I felt out of place. But as the days went by, I came to realize that more than being smart, these 14 people had a passion for learning, and that is something I felt I could relate to. 

Throughout the conference, I felt that I was genuinely being listened to. It wasn't one of those conversations were although everyone is "hearing", only a small group of people are actually listening. You would think that we had to be very careful about what we said because we were all from such different parts of the world, but surprisingly, none of us were afraid to share what we had to say because while we were all so 
DIFFERENT, we were also all very 
ACCEPTING. 

On the last night, we stayed up late and played truth or dare. When I say truth or dare, however, I don't mean the typical "How many girls have you kissed" version of the game. We asked each other questions like "Do you think you deserve to be where you are in life", and "If you had three wishes to do anything in the world what would they be?". 

My friend Rahul from India explained how despite feeling deserving of this opportunity, and overcoming a lot in life to get here, he feels guilty for being at this all expense-paid trip because there are thousands of people in India who can't even afford to pay for a decent meal or an education. I completely understand where he is coming from; we see so much poverty in our every day lives, and yet we go out and buy things that we don't even need. I'm no exception. And although one part of me feels deserving of this opportunity, it also makes me think how many people I could have helped with the money that was invested in me to come here. 

My friend Aia, from Lebanon, explained how she would only ask for one wish, and that would be to make the world a  F A I R E R  place. Not more equal, but more fair. One clear example of this is in school. There are so many people around the world that buy their way through high school and college despite having all the means to succeed on their own. They cheat on exams, pay prestigious universities in order to get admitted , and have professional write their college research papers. 

Is that fair? 

In my opinion, it's not, and it's something that frustrates me, especially because I see it happen a lot. But something Rahul told me--and he's completely right-- is that at the end of the day, the people that buy their way through life aren't successful because they're not truly learning. I rather look back at my life and know that I've earned where I stand, not live with the guilt and consciousness of knowing I paid my way through it. 

One of the stories that most impacted me was that of my friend Alwaleed, from Saudi Arabia. He was the first person I met, the last person I said goodbye to, and probably one of the people I have most respect for. He has the biggest passion for physics--his dream is to study theoretical physics at Cambridge University--and he is currently living in London by himself so that he can complete the IB Diploma. 

His parents live in Saudi Arabia, therefore, he is basically a 17 year old living an adult life. He told me how he doesn't need a teacher to learn, because to him, education is so valuable that even it it means that he must read a huge textbook by himself, he'll do it. He's watched four movies in his entire life--he loves watching documentaries--and when asked whether he's ever drunk alcohol he said "absolutely not". 

He's different, and I LOVE that. 

One of the things I really didn't understand was how everyone was aware of the problems facing education but they are still all planning to attend universities that embody many of these problems. My friend Kerem--from Turkey--said he didn't believe that attending an Ivy League was the best option for many of us because it was clear that we weren't looking for a traditional education. We were looking for real world experiences, hands on learning, relevancy, and personalization. 

Nonetheless, the problem that many mentioned was that attending an Ivy League is like giving yourself a brand, it secures you a good future. And although I understand their point of view completely, I also believe that it isn't your college degree that will get you far in life, it is who you are how hard you work. Yes, the college you attend can play a role in your future, but it is most certainly not the only determining factor of success. Plus, if we all attend these universities just because they ensure us "safety", wll education ever change? I think we need people like Rahul, Aia, and Karem, to drive the change in education, and to make universities realize that there is more than one way of learning, and the university we attend should mirror the way we learn best. 

Something that came up in our conversation was how we all have this guilt when we are not working. But what does working really mean? Is it sitting in front of a textbook and taking notes? Is it writing essays? Schools have engraved this idea in our minds that when we're not "working", as in sitting in front of a pen and paper, or on our computers, we're not learning. But doesn't the best learning come from experience? We didn't learn how to talk or walk by sitting in front of a piece of paper, we learned by actually doing it. Thus, we shouldn't feel guilty for doing the things we love, because for the most part, we are probably learning more by doing them than by reading off a text book. 

I could probably go on for hours about each of the 14 people I met, the conversations I had with them, and the experiences we shared, because they are one of the most different and genuine group of people I've gotten the chance to work with. This experience proved to me that the country we come from, the color of our skin and the languages we speak are just tiny barriers we must overcome to understand how similar we really are to one another. I really hope that some day, and some time in the future, I get to meet up with each and everyone of these people again, because I would love to see the remarkable things that they are going to do with their lives.  

What would the world be like if education were accessible to everyone? Would crime rates diminish? Would unemployment decrease? Would we witness economic growth? Economic development? 

One of the topics that I most loved from our discussions at JAB was that which focused on MOOCs, Massive Online Open Courses, which are online courses delivered electronically to massive audiences from all around the world. Together with 14 other students, I was given the opportunity to participate in IE Universities radio show--where we debated the Pro's and Con's of MOOC's. 

At the end of the day, do the advantages of having MOOC's outnumber the disadvantages? I believe they do simply because it makes EDUCATION accessibly to ANYONE. Therefore, whether you are rich or poor, young or old, as long as you have a drive for learning--and an internet cafe nearby--you have the right to an education. 

Some would argue that it is unfair that some people pay 60,000 dollars to receive a Harvard education while others can simply get it for free online. I disagree. The people receiving that education are paying for it because they can afford to pay for it. Plus, as previously mentioned, MOOC's may offer a student with quality content, but it most certainly does not come close to offering the full college experience. The way I see it, the objective of MOOCS is not to replace traditional education, it is simply to make education accessible to all. And what's better?

When we think of investing our money, the first place that comes to most of our minds is the stock market. But if Charles Wheelan has taught me anything it is that 

By investing in ourselves I mean investing in human capital. Investing in education, in health, in safety, in ways to acquire scarce skills. Because at the end of the  day, the more scarce your skills and talents, the better compensated you are. Nonetheless,  human capital doesn't simply embody that which you buy, it embodies virtues such as  perseverance, honesty, and creativity. 

To a certain extent, the fleas can act as a representation of us humans. Often times, when we face an obstacle--such as the glass lid--we train ourselves to stay beneath it, beneath our point of failure. Why? Because we're tired of hitting our heads, and to be quite honest, we're afraid of being ridiculed. However, if we want a scarce human capital, we must stop thinking about failing and start thinking of ways to push through our failure. At the end of the day, we can't think outside the box if we're afraid of what we'll find outside.

Similar to the fleas, there's a theory known as the crabs-in-a-bucket theory. It explains how a crab can easily escape out of a bucket when it's by itself. But when the crab is placed with multiple crabs, and it tries to escape, all of the other crabs pull it down. The analogy for humans is that, out of envy and conspiracy, we try to pull each other into the bucket because we fear that by having someone climb out, we are risking they achieve success beyond our own.  

I was able to relate this theory to a concept Charles Wheelan mentioned: relative utility.  
An experiment was conducted where you could choose between two "worlds." World A, where  you would earn 110,000 dollars, while everyone else earned 200,000, and World B, where you would earn 100,000 dollars while everyone else earned 80,000. 

Despite being richer in option A, and thus being able to afford more, the experiment showed that most people would be happier in world B because they would be wealthier in relation to everyone else. 

It's amazing to me how, by nature, many of us find pleasure in being better off than those who surround us. And although a difference in wealth can be positive at times because it motivates us to work harder and be more productive, what happens when the difference in wealth is so large that it becomes dismotivating instead of empowering? 

As Mr. Wheelan mentioned, if the pie is growing, how much should we care about the size of the pieces? Is it fair that the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer? As a matter of fact, why is there such a large gap between the rich and the poor in the first place? 

Through Naked Economics, I've learned that part of the cause for such a gap is that the rich have the resources to invest in their human capital, and our economy is growing in favor of skilled workers. For instance, many firms have moved towards the idea of using technology to make production more efficient. Although this benefits high skilled individuals who are tech savvy, as they will be the ones designing such technology, this could result as a job loss for low skilled workers. As a result, the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. 

One thing that continues to baffle me is the  C O M P L E X I T Y  of such a situation. What about the people who can't afford to improve their human capital? How are they suppose to develop "scarce" skills without any resources? How do we not know that the next Steve Jobs is not one of the thousands of people who can't afford an education?

In fact, I originally thought microcredit loans were given to allow people living in very low socio economic condition to start a small business. It turns out, however, that a micro credit loan is only given to someone thats had a small business running for at least 6 months. While I understand this is a rule the bank must have to avoid giving out loans that are too risky, I ask myself, what about the people who can't even afford to start up a small business? What are they suppose to do? Who's there to help them? Is it fair that their slice of the pie gets smaller and smaller?