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

Robyn's Response to Digital Diploma Mills Part II



Response to Digital Diploma Mills Part II:

I've had a really hard time just reading this piece. Why? Well, this
quote says it all, “If the THEN-UCLA agreement brought out the pecuniary
preoccupations of private commerce into the heart and soul of higher
education, it also carried with it another characteristic aspect of
proprietary enterprise: secrecy.” In my mind, the “heart and soul” of
higher education has ALWAYS had a price tag and therefore has always
been linked to commerce. You have to pay to learn. It is not free. Even
public education isn't free because someone, somewhere (the taxpayer) is
paying for it. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with paying for
education but I think it is ridiculous to have these lofty ideas about
how education is above commerce because it's not and never has been.

I do realize that some of the article deals with copyright issues and
who owns what, i.e. do instructors get to own the courses they create,
etc., and there is certainly fodder for discussion along that avenue.
What is difficult for me is that the article's basic foundation is
flawed in my opinion. Noble seems to think that until just recently,
universities and other educational institutions, were completely free of
the taint of commerce. However, he opens the article by pointing out how
the commercialization of research is creeping further into the
university and reaching online education. He also describes how the
administration at UCLA pretty much shut out the professors and
instructors at the school. Sounds like when the management at a
corporation shut out the masses of employees, huh? The weird thing is
that I don't see when there was a time that this kind of stuff wasn't
going on. When was that? I'd really like to know at what point in time
universities and other educational institutions existed solely for the
purpose of educating their students and the professors/faculty just did
what they did (did research or wrote plays or made art or whatever) just
for the sake of their profession? 

I agree that's it's not too nice that the university administrators
talked the faculty into selling their rights to their creations and
inventions away, but it's pretty good business for the universities
themselves. It's not too dissimilar to the way record companies have
artists sign away their rights to their creations. The only thing the
artists really “own” is their live performances, as do professors.
Record companies can package CDs, videos etc., but it can't package the
experience of seeing a band live. They can't duplicate that experience
where your ears ringed for a bit afterwards, and then you had to wash
your jeans because someone spilled beer on you, but you really didn't
care because you had such a great time dancing and just being there even
though you really hate cigarette smoke. They can't package that but it
won't stop them from trying. Similarly, universities can't package the
experience of actually physically attending a class with a professor.
They can't package the experience of interacting with other students in
the class or seeing the professor interact with other students, but
universities are trying to do that with online education. I have to
admit that since they are businesses, I can't really blame them,
although in a way it seems as if they are shooting themselves in the
foot. Professors help to shape the university after all. They shape the
product. In many ways, they are the product but it seems that
universities (and also record companies) just want more control because
they want more money.

Near the end of the article, Noble writes that, “These agreements herald
a new regime in higher education, one which is taking hold of the
nation's campuses at an accelerating rate: the commoditization and
commercialization of instruction.”  Again, I just feel that there are
two completely separate issues here: whether or not education is/was a
commercial enterprise (I think it always has been---feel free to argue
with me on this point) and whether or not university top brass are
giving faculty a bum deal with having them sign away their rights to
their creations (gee, that's a toughie! Hmm. I guess I'd say the profs
are getting a bum deal.). Sure, profs are getting ripped off. Students
are getting ripped off too but it's not information technology's fault.
This has been going on a long time. Online education just provides a new
avenue for university administrators to try and exploit and use to
squeeze their faculty workhorses a bit more.