[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Digital, Diploma, Mills, Part, I
I'm beginning to know what to expect from David Noble: an extreme viewpoint,
some defensible and some indefensible positions, and a strong inclination
towards conspiracy theory. We can surely expect provocative thinking from
Mr. Noble, but we had better check the research and conclusions for
ourselves.
Let's start with some basic assumptions. A college diploma has a cost in
money and time and a perceived value in the marketplace. Universities are
designed to produce graduates in the optimal, if not the most efficient,
way. Revenue is essential to the viability of the institution. Percieved
value is essential to continued revenu.
We like to think that there is more to the college experience than the
exchange. There is the socializing element of bringing young people to
adulthood. We also like to think that Universities are havens for creative
and ethical thought that would be crushed under the weight of commerce. We
believe that there is something called the truth that is pursued at
Universities regardless of the exigencies of conveying that truth or it's
value in the marketplace.
All of these things are profoundly important, politically, morally and
socially. Universities, along with churches, occupy an essential place in
society, and few would be comfortable without them (see "It's a Wonderful
Life"). Is the Pursuit of Truth (POT) as important at Naugatuck Valley
Community Technical College as it is at Mr. Jefferson's Academical Village
in Charlottesville, Va? Of course not. But then again, a programming class
at NVCTC is quite different a programming course offered by Microsoft.
When we read Noble's article, we need to ask two questions: does technology
add or detract from measurable effectiveness in teaching, and does it
protect or threaten the independence and privacy of students and faculty.
Mr. Nobles initial argument that technology is bad because students and
faculty don't want it, but administrators demand it anyway, is debatable and
unsupported. Neither group is exempt from priorities other than the
effectiveness of education. Both have an interest in protecting their
lifestyle. Students at a four year residential university have an advantage
over populations that are physically or economically isolated. The voices
of the disenfranchised are not heard at the student protests. The word
"effete" comes to mind.
Does the four-year, geographically and socially contained college model work
for everybody? Is it the only model? Hardly. We increasingly need to
shift our focus from one-time to lifelong education. As we get older, we
are less able attend centralized person to person classes, and distance
educations becomes the better if not only alternative.
The "commoditization of education" is both a promise and a threat. The good
think about commodities is that they are easily measured and conveyed. The
mystery is removed, you know the price, you know what you are getting, and
cannot be denied access if you have the price. The danger is that
commoditization will impose a drab sameness to thing that is profoundly
differentiated, but only to those who are sensitive to it's value. This is
an insidious danger, and Mr. Noble is right to point it out.
Noble's views are largely the product of his perceptions of other's motives.
One is certainly wise to question, as he does, what IBM, Microsoft,
Time-Warner and all have in mind. We recoil at the thought of attending
"Jefferson University - brought to you by Jello". On the other hand, few
would have a problem using courseware developed in part by IBM. The
difference between the two is the bleeding of the corporate message into the
educational message. Companies tend to tread very lightly in order to avoid
the appearance of sullying the education waters, although we can find some
pretty comical examples of just the opposite. Can we count on corporations
to take the high ground, and resist the temptation to slip a plug in for
themselves? Of course not - they will do whatever the traffic will allow.
We had a good example of the conflict of corporate interests and freedom of
speech this year, right here at UNC. A Kraft foods booth was the target of
a demonstration by students. The Kraft representatives claim they "felt
threatened" by a (female) student. They put pressure on the university,
citing a $50,000 commitment to the university. In a pathetic display of
spineless capitulation, the university took absurdly severe disciplinary
action against the student. Do we think this was the product of sincere
concern for the personal safety of corporate representatives on campus. Not
for a minute - only the corporate image and financial endowment were ever
threatened. At least we know now, that not only is our school's integrity
for sale, but that it's sensibly priced!
Conflicts of interest exist inside the university as well. As Mr. Noble
correctly points out, the views of both the faculty and students are a
matter of record in a distance learning environment. Scrutiny is a powerful
incentive to sameness, risk-aversion, and even silence. Technology
facilitates, and sometimes mandates collaboration. Anyone who has ever
worked in a group project or on a committee knows that this cuts both ways.
For every instance of synergy, there are several of paralisis and diminution
of meaning.
There are two substantive issues in the Noble article, along with a lot of
noise. First, is distance education effective. Where there are
alternatives, we need to measure, learn, choose and adapt, and Mr. Noble
offers nothing in any of these regards. Where there are no alternatives,
for populations that do not have access to a campus, distance education is
only competing with ignorance. The second issue is the provocative one.
Will technology promote models of collaboration and oversight that stifle or
corrupt the education process. There is a very direct threat that it will.
The challenge is to develop and enforce strict policies to assure the safety
of independent thought (see Jefferson).
I will confess to more than one personal prejudice in area. My father
attended a corporate university, General Motors Institute. It directly
enabled him to go from being the son of an immigrant factory worker to being
president of the factory. I don't suppose the Greater Truth is served so
well at GMI, but my father never complained about the value he got for his
effort. (I always wanted to include a gratuitous, self-righteous father
reference in an article, and now I have).
My other prejudice is that I am targeting distance education companies such
as Eduprise.com in my job search. I don't think I am a starry-eyed believer
in distance ed. Let's just say that I take the minority position of being
for things that work, against things that don't and open-minded enought to
wait until the results before I make up my mind.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com