Technology and education

Ikari said:

******s and communists! When I was in grad school, and undergraduate killed himself in the labs. Literally (though not intentionally). Shorted 3-Phase across his chest. They revived his ass, he's no worse for the wear and hell, now he's immune to electricity.

Click to expand...

HS science classes are now, all theory no practice.
Makes science boring as ****.

Harry Guerrilla said:

HS science classes are now, all theory no practice.
Makes science boring as ****.

Click to expand...

We made rockets in our class that was fun and interesting.

Harry Guerrilla said:

HS science classes are now, all theory no practice.
Makes science boring as ****.

Click to expand...

I have heard but, not from an independent authoritative source so grains of salt, that there is a huge generational divide in science teachers meaning there are tons of old ones and not so many young ones so there will be a huge void in that field in a decade or so.

digsbe said:

There are certain areas of study that will always require a classroom, the internet won't replace these.

Click to expand...

Okay, but how do you define "classroom"? Say you're the prof while I'm the student. You're in a university classroom--boards, tables or desks, whatever. And so am I, just not the same room.

I'm looking at you at the front of the room or as you move about (special mats, and this is just like the "blocking" of tv/film/stage). You're writing notes on the white board (special boards/special markers), and I am writing them down and/or seeing them and having them stored on my laptop or IPad or whatever.

You're looking at me; I'm looking at you. You can see everything I'm doing and vice-versa. Unless the classroom you're talking about requires the smell of my perfume (Estee Lauder, LOL) or other students' aftershave or to physically touch me, what's the difference?

0bserver92 said:

We made rockets in our class that was fun and interesting.

Click to expand...

I did that was I was 10 or 11, at my house.
Building model rockets is very basic stuff, they were doing in the 60's for little kids.

nota bene said:

Okay, but how do you define "classroom"? Say you're the prof while I'm the student. You're in a university classroom--boards, tables or desks, whatever. And so am I, just not the same room.

I'm looking at you at the front of the room or as you move about (special mats, and this is just like the "blocking" of tv/film/stage). You're writing notes on the white board (special boards/special markers), and I am writing them down and/or seeing them and having them stored on my laptop or IPad or whatever.

You're looking at me; I'm looking at you. You can see everything I'm doing and vice-versa. Unless the classroom you're talking about requires the smell of my perfume (Estee Lauder, LOL) or other students' aftershave or to physically touch me, what's the difference?

Click to expand...

I'm mainly talking mainly about science labs and courses that require students to learn hands on skills. That's why I preface things with "certain areas of study."

Harry Guerrilla said:

Online classrooms bro.
Already been invented.

Social interaction is fine, but from what I remember from school, we didn't do a whole lot of group activities, it was mostly individual.

Click to expand...

That might work for soft skills like philosophy or basket weaving. But for the hard degrees like engineering, physics and chemistry, working together in person is positively required. Hands on is a huge part in engineering, and when you get to your job, you need to be able to work in an engineering team, in person, and be at least half competent. You can't do that from reading about electronics on the internet, you have to do.

RabidAlpaca said:

That might work for soft skills like philosophy or basket weaving. But for the hard degrees like engineering, physics and chemistry, working together in person is positively required. Hands on is a huge part in engineering, and when you get to your job, you need to be able to work in an engineering team, in person, and be at least half competent. You can't do that from reading about electronics on the internet, you have to do.

Click to expand...

I dunno, a lot of people have taught themselves how to do all that stuff.

I have read through all the tread.
I ran the Science and Engineering labs at a University for over a decade.
There is a lot of infrastructure that most do not see.
It costs a lot more than the lab fees to put together a functioning lab.
It doesn't matter if it's Digital Circuits, or Inorganic Chemistry.
A lot of private research is conducted at Universities, because they have the
infrastructure, and researchers in place.
The company paying for the grant get the work done,
he Professor and grad students get to work on real world solutions.
It is a win - win scenario.

longview said:

I have read through all the tread.
I ran the Science and Engineering labs at a University for over a decade.
There is a lot of infrastructure that most do not see.
It costs a lot more than the lab fees to put together a functioning lab.
It doesn't matter if it's Digital Circuits, or Inorganic Chemistry.
A lot of private research is conducted at Universities, because they have the
infrastructure, and researchers in place.
The company paying for the grant get the work done,
he Professor and grad students get to work on real world solutions.
It is a win - win scenario.

Click to expand...

Yup. The people jumping up and down for joy thinking this could be the end of academia are just fooling themselves. Lecture will not go away, the University will not go away, it will not turn into an internet only institution. There are some fields that you may be able to do entirely online, but many more cannot be. It's great that someone can sit in their chair at home and get an MBA, but something like that is not compatible with all subjects.

It won't happen. What are student chemists supposed to do, go buy a load of chemicals and do experiments on their kitchen tables? There will always be a need for some form of physical space for education.

longview said:

I have read through all the tread.
I ran the Science and Engineering labs at a University for over a decade.
There is a lot of infrastructure that most do not see.
It costs a lot more than the lab fees to put together a functioning lab.
It doesn't matter if it's Digital Circuits, or Inorganic Chemistry.
A lot of private research is conducted at Universities, because they have the
infrastructure, and researchers in place.
The company paying for the grant get the work done,
he Professor and grad students get to work on real world solutions.
It is a win - win scenario.

Click to expand...

I can envision a future where such labs operate as for-profit "hired guns," being hired by corporations to do needed research.

Lecture has nothing to do with what you've described. That aspect can be farmed out to the Internet. It's the most efficient model and I believe we are headed in that direction.

Ikari said:

Yup. The people jumping up and down for joy thinking this could be the end of academia are just fooling themselves. Lecture will not go away, the University will not go away, it will not turn into an internet only institution. There are some fields that you may be able to do entirely online, but many more cannot be. It's great that someone can sit in their chair at home and get an MBA, but something like that is not compatible with all subjects.

Click to expand...

I would love to see the traditional model of academe end - it's an outdated cancer on our society. However, that's not what this is about. This is about technology bringing access to education to more people, and that's something we can all get behind.

One day, people in the world's poorest nations will be able to attend virtual classes, and will be able to attain the same degrees as are enjoyed today by only the most fortunate among us.

Peter Grimm said:

I would love to see the traditional model of academe end - it's an outdated cancer on our society. However, that's not what this is about. This is about technology bringing access to education to more people, and that's something we can all get behind.

One day, people in the world's poorest nations will be able to attend virtual classes, and will be able to attain the same degrees as are enjoyed today by only the most fortunate among us.

Click to expand...

Academia has always been, in one form or another, one of the greatest venues for expansion of humanity. It continues to be so. A necessity for the never ending evolution of the human race. We think, above all else we think. You seem to want to make cogs, but cogs only lead to stagnation. It's slow death. Thinkers are necessary, the drivers, the ones who expand human knowledge and test the limits of human ability. Academia provides the overall environment and resources for this to flourish freely.

I would weep if ever academia were destroyed. It would signal the end of the human race. Slow decline and death afterwards.

Ikari said:

Academia has always been, in one form or another, one of the greatest venues for expansion of humanity. It continues to be so. A necessity for the never ending evolution of the human race. We think, above all else we think. You seem to want to make cogs, but cogs only lead to stagnation. It's slow death. Thinkers are necessary, the drivers, the ones who expand human knowledge and test the limits of human ability. Academia provides the overall environment and resources for this to flourish freely.

I would weep if ever academia were destroyed. It would signal the end of the human race. Slow decline and death afterwards.

Click to expand...

One word, to me, describes academe: elitism.

Elitism has worked in the past in a variety of areas. As human society evolves, so do the checks and balances on the powers on the elites.

We once had monarchs and kings, because that's all we knew. It worked for a while, and advanced society to a point. Then, in a stroke of human genius, we evolved toward modern governments where every man's voice could be heard.

Similarly, academe's outdated model of hoarding information will succumb to the greater forces of populism and technology.

People, thinkers, will wake up and realize that information is as valuable as the right to vote. Information is as valuable as gold. Information is as valuable as anything human beings can pursue.

When that epiphany strikes, there won't be any turning back. Why should people have to go to you, the academic elite, to access information? The internet age is upon us, and where once it was a chore to look up even a basic morsel of information, today most things can be simply googled.

As technology advances, the academic elites become less and less needed. There is no more bottleneck where we have to go to them for knowledge.

One day, the most downtrodden of people in India, or Africa, or Latin America, will be able to get PHD's simply by using the internet. It will happen in spite of academe's efforts to hoard power.

No. At least, not in my discipline (History).

In education circles, they are really big on online courses, at least for graduate study. A number of those enrolled are already educators and are restricted with commutes and could use the advanced degrees. Myself, I find that relatively irritating. I'm discovering an entire field (Special Education) that used to hold regular in-class meetings are doing everything online. But it would make so much more sense to be able to actually be face-to-face. It's not a step 1, step 2 kind of thing. I would like some complicated situations that regularly occur in the real world explained to me, perhaps additional guidance on subjects glossed over, or better communication with my peers. Mind you, these courses were available to undergraduates in traditional form, which is why I was surprised at the difference when I moved up. Now an undergraduate can take the course in the new online style.

Consider an entire course on the IEP and the IEP team in special education. Each student in special education has an individualized plan where numerous peoples meet together to discuss what it is they will be doing for this particular student. One person has to be a parent or guardian, one has to be a general education instructor, another has to be a special education instructor, there has to be an administrator, and there's numerous other parties that become involved (the student, service providers, school counselors, and so forth.) These people meet at least once a year, and it is a central component to the field, and every teacher will face it numerous times a year. Now, an online course is nearly completely independent, with individuals from all over the state, perhaps out of state. Somehow, somewhere, these people may benefit from a simulation. It would be of immense benefit if the simulation was actually a simulation instead of Student A by his or herself doing the entire process by themselves. Why? Because that's what goes on in the real world. It's a bureaucratic and political battlefield in there, and now it's been reduced to online discussion boards and perhaps a Skype conference or something. It's ridiculously bad. Sure, experienced teachers or whomever may have been in an IEP team and think they've got it all figured out (truth is, most don't), but now we've practically crippled intellectual growth on the matter, reducing the amount of criticism and inquiry the process should be given.

Peter Grimm said:

One word, to me, describes academe: elitism.

Elitism has worked in the past in a variety of areas. As human society evolves, so do the checks and balances on the powers on the elites.

We once had monarchs and kings, because that's all we knew. It worked for a while, and advanced society to a point. Then, in a stroke of human genius, we evolved toward modern governments where every man's voice could be heard.

Similarly, academe's outdated model of hoarding information will succumb to the greater forces of populism and technology.

People, thinkers, will wake up and realize that information is as valuable as the right to vote. Information is as valuable as gold. Information is as valuable as anything human beings can pursue.

When that epiphany strikes, there won't be any turning back. Why should people have to go to you, the academic elite, to access information? The internet age is upon us, and where once it was a chore to look up even a basic morsel of information, today most things can be simply googled.

As technology advances, the academic elites become less and less needed. There is no more bottleneck where we have to go to them for knowledge.

One day, the most downtrodden of people in India, or Africa, or Latin America, will be able to get PHD's simply by using the internet. It will happen in spite of academe's efforts to hoard power.

Click to expand...

Ikari and I share very little in terms of perspective, but both of us more or less see the value of academia, and can enjoy its elitist qualities. Now, in some respects, Ikari probably would see history as a much more popular field, one that always had prided itself in some respect wishing to edify the masses, which is largely true. He may even think it is a relatively banal task or an easy one (neither of which I would think is true). However, there is a significant portion of the field that is more interested in advancing the craft and each specific subject, and less concerned with how the masses will consume it (if they could understand it). Ikari's field is far less accessible than history is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing at all. In fact, I remember a number of times where I felt no troubles reading from him that in many respects, that's something that's actually good about science. It advances the human condition and its understanding of the world without bothering to placate lesser minds, hoping to catch them up (because that will just slow progress much of the time). To some extent you can easily argue we have to be careful in talking to the public, because they will want us to turn it into something we don't want it to be....written in crayon, entertain far more than inform, and that sort of thing.

Elitism is precisely what is needed in many areas of life. Democracy is not a virtue in all sectors.

Peter Grimm said:

One word, to me, describes academe: elitism.

Elitism has worked in the past in a variety of areas. As human society evolves, so do the checks and balances on the powers on the elites.

Click to expand...

Elitism is usually the cry of the individual who cannot do.

Besides, there's nothing inherently wrong with elitism. The better more capable individual gains the spoils.

Peter Grimm said:

One word, to me, describes academe: elitism.

Elitism has worked in the past in a variety of areas. As human society evolves, so do the checks and balances on the powers on the elites.

We once had monarchs and kings, because that's all we knew. It worked for a while, and advanced society to a point. Then, in a stroke of human genius, we evolved toward modern governments where every man's voice could be heard.

Similarly, academe's outdated model of hoarding information will succumb to the greater forces of populism and technology.

People, thinkers, will wake up and realize that information is as valuable as the right to vote. Information is as valuable as gold. Information is as valuable as anything human beings can pursue.

When that epiphany strikes, there won't be any turning back. Why should people have to go to you, the academic elite, to access information? The internet age is upon us, and where once it was a chore to look up even a basic morsel of information, today most things can be simply googled.

As technology advances, the academic elites become less and less needed. There is no more bottleneck where we have to go to them for knowledge.

One day, the most downtrodden of people in India, or Africa, or Latin America, will be able to get PHD's simply by using the internet. It will happen in spite of academe's efforts to hoard power.

Click to expand...

So this is where you were headed all along.

The Academy doesn't exist to hoard information; it exists to protect, nurture, and celebrate it.

And BTW, the accrediting agencies are monitoring. Sure, there are "mail-order ministers" and bogus doctorate, but an accredited Ph.D. or MFA will be legit irrespective of the course delivery system.

And that's all you're talking about, a delivery system. Whether a prof is lecturing in a physical classroom or via video or live TV, a prof is a prof. Many professors teach both traditional classrooms and through a distance ed. modality. I assure you that the course content doesn't deviate from one to another and also that not only the accrediting agencies, but also the feds are paying attention and eager to ensure quality control of course content.

Fiddytree said:

Ikari and I share very little in terms of perspective, but both of us more or less see the value of academia, and can enjoy its elitist qualities. Now, in some respects, Ikari probably would see history as a much more popular field, one that always had prided itself in some respect wishing to edify the masses, which is largely true. He may even think it is a relatively banal task or an easy one (neither of which I would think is true). However, there is a significant portion of the field that is more interested in advancing the craft and each specific subject, and less concerned with how the masses will consume it (if they could understand it). Ikari's field is far less accessible than history is, and that's not necessarily a bad thing at all. In fact, I remember a number of times where I felt no troubles reading from him that in many respects, that's something that's actually good about science. It advances the human condition and its understanding of the world without bothering to placate lesser minds, hoping to catch them up (because that will just slow progress much of the time). To some extent you can easily argue we have to be careful in talking to the public, because they will want us to turn it into something we don't want it to be....written in crayon, entertain far more than inform, and that sort of thing.

Elitism is precisely what is needed in many areas of life. Democracy is not a virtue in all sectors.

Click to expand...

Said the monarch during the "French/British/take-your-pick" revolution.

nota bene said:

So this is where you were headed all along.

The Academy doesn't exist to hoard information; it exists to protect, nurture, and celebrate it.

And BTW, the accrediting agencies are monitoring. Sure, there are "mail-order ministers" and bogus doctorate, but an accredited Ph.D. or MFA will be legit irrespective of the course delivery system.

And that's all you're talking about, a delivery system. Whether a prof is lecturing in a physical classroom or via video or live TV, a prof is a prof. Many professors teach both traditional classrooms and through a distance ed. modality. I assure you that the course content doesn't deviate from one to another and also that not only the accrediting agencies, but also the feds are paying attention and eager to ensure quality control of course content.

Click to expand...

Libraries exist to protect, nurture, and celebrate information. Don't you see that universities have a different and more active role in society?

Accrediting agencies are part of the problem, as is the federal oversight you discussed. Such things are inherently bureaucratic. That's a difficult concept to explain, really, but I'll try it with an analogy: A fence at the zoo is not meant to keep the animals in as much as it's meant to keep the people out. Similarly, degrees, issued by universities and given their stamp of approval by accrediting agencies, are not meant to reward the efforts of the person who earned the degree so much as they are meant to segregate out the people who did not earn that degree from any academic discussion.

The problem is that some of the smartest people I know don't have degrees.

Ikari said:

Elitism is usually the cry of the individual who cannot do.

Besides, there's nothing inherently wrong with elitism. The better more capable individual gains the spoils.

Click to expand...

Free markets are the best mechanism we have to ensure that more capable people gain the spoils. Universities don't operate under free market principles.

Peter Grimm said:

Said the monarch during the "French/British/take-your-pick" revolution.

Click to expand...

Said the French republican....

Peter Grimm said:

Free markets are the best mechanism we have to ensure that more capable people gain the spoils. Universities don't operate under free market principles.

Click to expand...

The US doesn't operate under free market principles. When the actual markets obey free market; perchance I shall give a damn about the world of academia. Universities are not businesses.

Ikari said:

The US doesn't operate under free market principles. When the actual markets obey free market; perchance I shall give a damn about the world of academia. Universities are not businesses.

Click to expand...

How very convenient.