[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