Slashdot Mirror
America's Most Connected Campuses
foghorn666 writes "Forbes and the Princeton Review have posted their list of America's Most Connected Campuses, which measures the technological capabilities of the country's 357 top colleges and universities. They're looking at infrastructure stuff like whether wireless networks are available, if you can register for classes online, and so on - not really curriculum. But the results are interesting, and the winner not a huge surprise: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute."
A major portion of their analysis seems to be the ratio of students to computers, but that is rather unfair: they are only counting campus-owned computers, not the ones students bring with them. For example: my alma matter, the University of Washington, has two EXCELLENT, large computer labs, plus others scattered about the various buildings. They also have Wi-Fi network s (though not campus-wide). But still, the majority of students bring their own computers (wether laptops they carry or desktops in their dorms). And ya know what, it didn't even make the list! This is bull-crap!
William George
Now has amazing connectivity. The entire campus (quite large) is entirely "lit up" with wireless hot-spots, and most buildings have an ethernet tap for every classroom seat.
To make it better, in the student housing, for some pitifully low amount ($25?), you get a 20 megabit(!) connection. All paid for by student fees, of course.
Now, I'm all for computers. But when tuition has tripled over the past ten years, parking costs have quadrupled, and student fees are going out the roof - all the time real services to students are decreasing - it makes me wonder if it's really worth it.
Am I really going to be a better engineer if I have a 20 megabit connection to my home vs. a 1- or 2-megabit? Not really. Will a sociologist find better research to study over the 20-megabit connection? Nope.
The matter extends into the classrooms - while some connectivity has a very good payoff, they've gone to such lengths that the cost has far, far exceeded the benefits. It's just plain irresponsible.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I'd expect a lot of smaller, more obscure schools to rank more highly. Particularly when the ratio of technology to student body is so heavily used. USD for example not only has a great ratio of desktops to students, but also provides PALMs to incomming students and has network/power conneectors for laptops at most classroom seats. Yet they only scored number 17.
It would seem that a college with very few students would have a far easier time beating the ratio game.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
- Is there a campuswide network?: yes
- Is there a wireless network?: yes
- Can students access e-mail away from school?: yes
- Does the school provide Web pages?: yes
- Does the school offer classes online?:
- Can students register online?: yes
- Can students do other administrative functions online?: yes
- Are students required to own a computer?: No, thats what labs are for!
- :Can students get discounted computers? yes
- Does the school support handheld computers? yes
- Does the school stream audio or video of any courses?: yes
- Is network access available in dorm rooms?: yes
- Is network access available in dormitory lounges?: yes
- Is a computer ethics policy in place for the school?: yes
- :Do students have access to Usenet newsgroups?: yes
- Does tuition include a computer?: No, thats what labs are for!
- Does the school provide multimedia equipment?: yes
- Does the school offer courses in emerging technologies?: yes
- Does the school stream its campus radio or TV stations?: yes
Looks like they didn't even bother doing the minimal amount of research.I really can't tell how they did the research for the article. With so many basic wrong answers for GW, I can't imagine that they surveyed the schools themselves. Some of the questions that were wrong were the first things they tell you about on the tours when you visit; I can't imagine that GW wouldn't tell Forbes what they tell high school seniors. If the writer did the research himself, he needs to think about another career. The same can be said if they had interns doing the work, which is probably the case. But I still don't understand, many of these questions could have been answered by simple searches from GW's homepage.
Simply said, this article has no founding whatsoever. If other school's information is as wrong as GW's, then this article can't even be taken with a grain of salt.