“Efficiency” looks great on paper, probably involves nice theories, and possibly might even achieve god knows what; “effectiveness” however, gets the specific job done completely in the best possible way, he said – or words to that effect; I don’t precisely recollect because my brain was already churning since I’d always thought the words synonymous rather than, as Dick now argued, quite possibly opposites.

From an educational perspective (which Dick was on about) it meant that when a school was promoting gazillions of “socially relevant” programs, policies, workshops and protocols to meet political spin and public whim, their effectiveness was zero if the kids were being churned out illiterate, innumerate and educated only in their rights to claim the dole, gender fluidity and legal aid.

Or driver’s licences, one might suspect. While driver responsibility is a “good thing” to wish for, and an earlier teaching of it might seem an efficient idea, one can only ponder what its actual effectiveness might be.

The theory is that early-pubescent driver-education somehow improves safe driving in adulthood.

It sounds catchy and efficient – but effective? 

One can only ask for the evidence as to when school instruction of 12 to 15 year olds on “responsibility” (in anything) has ever survived some five to 15 years later.

Whether a one-off driving program that might amount to an hour per week for 10 weeks would affect actual driving attitudes years later is anyone’s guess.

Maybe an excursion to the morgue or the local hospital would achieve far more spectacular results insofar as curbing road aggression – show them the dead, bleeding, broken, mangled bodies for which they might one day expect to be responsible. 

That old showbiz maxim of “don’t tell ‘em, show ‘em” – yep, that would be hard to assess in terms of efficiency; but effective? You bet your bloody, dead life it would be.

Commercial driving instructors seem most partial to the idea and call, no doubt responsibly, for only commercial driving instructors (like themselves for instance!) to be paid for the tens of thousands of school sessions that would be generated. At best, it’s a bit like an auctioneer’s enthusiasm if flogging-off his own clobber – yes, it might be legit; but should there not be someone with a little less blatant conflict of interest than the mouse to propose that the cat be belled?

I’m sure that the good folk who have embarrassed themselves senseless on ignominious “reality TV” shows could also be paid for some sterling lessons warning our youth about selling every ounce of their dignity for a celebrity status that “looked good at the time”. It’s the same learning theory involved.

There’s also a point for parents to consider. Let’s say there’s a 12-week program to educate children about driving and that lessons are about an hour per week. From the effective study of what other subject do parents want those 12 hours deducted? Or do they want school hours to be extended? Or what? Dick would have known the answer – and I won’t insult him or you by second guessing him; but it would be to do with effectiveness, not efficiency.