[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Digital Diploma Mills



I agree with you Hannah. I am half way thru the Digital Diploma Mills,
Part II, and all I can think of when he goes on and on about the
commercialization of universities is that, I for one had ALWAYS considered
schools to be businesses. The product is education. The name of the school
is the brand.

I don't think you're naive, Hannah. I know that I have never been one to
really take to the lofty Ivory Tower academic atmosphere. One can argue
that all schools are diploma mills, whether they are digital or not. 

Robyn Pretzloff
SILS Computer Lab Co-Manager
School of Information & Library Science
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

"Reality is the leading cause of stress
among those who are in touch with it."
--Jane Wagner


On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Hannah Toney wrote:

> Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Hannah Toney <toneh@ils.unc.edu>
> To: 310 Seminar <inls310-74@ruby.ils.unc.edu>
> Subject: Digital Diploma Mills
> 
> >From reading in the first email that was sent out on Noble that he refuses
> to use email or any technology in his classes, I was already somewhat
> biased against him.  I was afraid that he was just flat-out against
> technology in the classroom in any form.  After reading "The automation of
> higher education" my opinion isn't very different.  
> I don't disagree with him on every point.  The two phases of the
> commoditization of the university (first of research, now of the
> educational function) is sufficently backed up.  Although I wonder, what's
> wrong with that?  Perhaps I'm just naive, but hasn't higher education
> always been a commodity?  I mean the universities don't provide the
> classes and degrees out of the goodness of their hearts.  
> Noble focuses on this second phase of commoditization, of instruction, and
> doesn't entirely convince me we need to be so alarmed.  He sets up the
> promoters as vendors, corporate training advocates, university
> administrators and " ubiquitous technozealots."  A premise behind his
> whole argument is that these virtual universities will REPLACE the "brick
> and mortar" universities.  Again, maybe I'm being naive, but I don't see
> this happening at all.  I have always seen these online courses as a
> supplement to inclass teaching.  As far as I know (I don't have any data
> to back this up) enrollement "offline" has continued to increase.  Those
> students that take classes offline will always take them offline.  It's
> not the courses (or even the degree for many) that draw freshmen to
> campus!  It's going off to college, partying and getting drunk.  Those
> taking the online courses take them because they are convienient.  I don't
> see the online courses as a replacement of offline teaching.
> I thought it was funny how he whined about teachers becoming "instantly
> and continuously accessible."  This is happening in so many fields!  And
> his "inevitable extension of working time" is also a common phenomenon in
> today's world.  I do not agree with his claim that "Once faculty put their
> course material online, moreover, the knowledge and course design skill
> embodied in that material is taken out of their possession, transferred to
> the machinery and placed in the hands of the administration."  I mean,
> it's like apples and oranges. Teaching online is just different from
> teaching in the classroom.  Why can't there be both?  I also disagree with
> his statement: "the new technology of education, like the automation of
> other industries, robs faculty of their knowledge and skills, their
> control over their working lives, the product of their labor and
> ultimately, the means of their livelihood."
> His assertion that students do not want faculty to "make fuller use of web
> site technology" is just false in my eyes.  Perhaps it was true in 1997,
> but today, students like having schedules and syllabi online.
> Perhaps if I didn't think he was such a Luddite, I might appreciate his
> argument more.  And while some of his fears seem somewhat valid, I don't
> think that the three years since he wrote this have helped to prove his
> point.
> Hannah
> 
>