Slashdot Mirror
Building Virtual Universities
Anonymous Coward writes "Psychologist and AI guru Roger Schank has an essay at the Edge about The Need for the Virtual University. Surprisingly, he sees nothing special about virtual universities except for the narrow window of opportunity to make schools that don't suck." Spend the time to read the whole article (it's in interview format and quite long) and you might come away with more than that. Schank raises some good questions - and proposes some good answers to them.
I think the problem with the idea of a Virtual University is the capacity to be ripped off. Figure that it wouldn't be all that challenging for someone to create their own virtual "university" and have people sending them thousands of dollars for degrees that mean nothing. There's already been something like this with the mail-order degree deal where you "earn your degree from home." I wonder what security measures would be enacted to prevent fraud.
--
you must amputate to email me
i read all replies to my comments
Most of my teachers just read off the overhead hour after hour. I don't see why I can't get that from sitting at home reading a monitor. If professors don't like virtual universities its their fault. They are the ones that stopped teaching, putting their students in charge of classes, ignored students, made boring lectures, gave imposible tests.
10AM on a saturday morning and two comments posted already!?!?! ;-)
They're not bots either... either we have two people who were forced to go to bed early by their parents, or they're in a different time zone.
Or maybe they're insane enough to go to bed before 4am
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
I'd like to see this sort of a fundemental change to the way we are taught in higher education. I find it personally easier to learn by doing than by reading and or listening. A combination of all 3 is pretty good too. Until every person has access to high speed access I doubt all 3 could be available in a Virtual U. This would probably hurt some of the smaller colleges if a college like Harvard was made available through a very good distance education. I would like to personally have a Virtual Degree from Harvard. I don't like their football team anyway so that would be a plus.
Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
How about tuition less than the GNP of a small country each semester?
Decent computers. Sorry, but that DX2/66 in the corner isn't going to do me much good if I need to make a fluid dynamics model. Now, if you had a hundred of them in a beowulf.. that would be better!
Wire up the dorms. And the surrounding community. :) Suprisingly, many colleges still haven't connected their students to a high-speed internet connection.
Nice big board in the computer room showing the latest slashdot articles. Use an overhead projector. :)
Forget putting the whole class online - how about just the class notes? Maybe even previous tests, or upcoming "things to study"? That would be uber-helpful.
Instructor's e-mail address. A few instructors don't/won't have/give e-mail addresses. It's also helpful for geeks like me who are too shy to call an instructor on the phone.
Boring instructors. Yes, we actually need more of them.
How about getting public transportation involved - like having routes that include drop-offs/pickups at colleges. Anything to help cut costs.
Girls!! We need more geek grrrls.
--
Oh Boy! Where do I sign up?!
I can't think of a better way to prepare for an existence of sitting by oneself in front of a computer screen, safely distanced from the rest of the world.
Since most geeks have a hard time interacting with real people, not having to confront them (or sunlight) while getting a degree can only help get the mind and body ready for an lifetime full of junk food, carbonated beverages, florescent lighting and no girlfriends.
Just take a long look at the "well rounded" education you get from Microsoft in their MCSE program.
If I have a 6-pack of Pepsi, and I drink two Pepsi's, how many Pepsi's have I enjoyed?
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I think people underestimate the difficulties facing tertiary education. The problem is that there is no single "university". Instead that term can cover the gamult of technical education (adult learning), teaching colleges, research universities, plus corporate labs/training campuses, each trying gain the prestigue of being called a university and thus diluting the value of the term. Also given the rising costs and reduced public resources, it will be more expensive for individuals to select the education they desire.
The unspoken question in the interview was how to sort out the "right" choice for each potential student. Given humankind's inability to predict the future, many young people have no real clue as to what they want to do in life, much less the best method to cultivate their talents. In the grand scheme of things (ignoring any taught material), universities act as a filter and sorting mechanism, allowing companies to select the top 5-20% on the basis that if you've got half-a-clue and are willing enough to slog it out for 3-4 years in a competitive environment with your peers, then at least you are marginally employable and can thus be trained
On the role of teaching, there are certain basic foundations which are essential for certain disciplines such as mathematics for many of the physical sciences. How many would willingly take up maths if it wasn't forced down their throats at an early age? While Richard Feynman was correct in saying "If you can't explain it, you don't understand it", there is a serious shortage of people who are both brilliant at research and excellent at teaching especially if the institutional incentive structures are not aligned this way. In short, you are asking for superstars, and in turn these superstars want superstudents (otherwise it would be a waste of their time) and the universities set harder entry barriers which raises the average cost (fewers students per staff). A rather tough cycle to break out of, not to mention the general upmanship and educational arms race (my supercomputer is bigger than your supercomputer etc).
So how can universities change to become more effective? The major problem is that education is not really market driven, more like a semi-regulated oliopoly (state charters, national certifications, etc) with all the expected distortions. The prestige factor alone can influence students in selecting a potential course though they may well not be totally suited or happy. Demonstrating competence is a difficult feat as there are many different skills and requirements for different disciplines. It is not like open source where one can point to as the CV and others can determine the quality (or lack thereof). Given the arrival of the web, I would toss out some possible directions education can head:
So to sum things up
LL
I think there is an important misconception in the article, one that is pretty common in general: that education is about learning information. It is not, at least not in the way normally considered.
In science and engineering courses, the most valuable thing learned is how to solve particular sorts of problems. I am not refering the needed laws and theories directly conveyed; these can generally be looked up as needed. Instead, I refer to the skill one gets (through practice and observation of others) at solving particular sorts of problems generally. I could probably have made it through astronomy grad school knowing only the information I learned in high school. However, very few students (if any at all) just out of high school have anywhere near the problem solving skills necessary to survive graduate education in a hard science.
Can these sorts of skills be taught over a computer network? I doubt it. Where I (and those I TA'd) did most of their learning was in doing problem sets (which you can do anywhere, net or no), lab experience, and tutoring (either from other students, professors, TA's, or professional tutors). This is where the most valuable stuff gets learned in college, not in lectures. Virtual labs are no replacement for real lab experience, and net communications are still too clunky for effective tutoring.
If a student learns the skills properly, any information needed can be learned with minimal effort. (I took a few comp. sci. and EE classes at the undergrad level as a grad student in astro. I went in with less informational knowledge (and probably less talent) than most of the students, and yet did very well relative to the classes as a whole, with less effort. Why? I picked up a lot of programming and math "skills" solving physics problems.)
I suspect the situation for teaching many of the humanities over the net is nearly as bad. The most valuable aspects of these sorts of courses I took were learned in discussion with peers and professors, and in writing papers, and in careful analysis of my papers by others. (The article seems to suggest that these classes are, in general, not worth taking anyway. I disagree. They are less vocationally useful, but have helped me enjoy my life more, and I would never have known what I was missing otherwise.)
-Hil
I doubt that the Virtual University will replace traditional college programs. As the author argues so well, they are certification programs and that is what most businesses actually want. As a test of being able to stick in one place for four years and do what you're told, colleges are wonderful.
There are also the socialization aspects that other readers have mentioned, and colleges are a indeed a useful halfway house between living with parents and really being out there on your own.
But for education, traditional colleges tend to be very poor unless the student is very focused on learning, not just graduating. Way too much politics, both internal and external, tend to get in the way. Good training for corporations and academia, but not really about education.
The idea I like about the Virtual U is that it could provide a way for many of us supposedly already socialized types access to learning resources. We all know that learning doesn't stop at the University if you are into technology. It allows individual pacing, so those with only a couple of hours a day to spare can still participate. It doesn't require yet another commute to attend classes.
Don't underestimate the interaction possible via internet -- slashdot is kinda fun for example, no? No replacement for real social contact, for example with the opposite sex, but not bad at all for intellectual discussion, the primary thrust of education.
Another advantage would be distributed resources. You can benefit from *both* MIT and CMU from your home terminal -- choice is no longer a career threatening hazard.
Even if Virtual U can't replace colleges, it can still have a very valuable role in education.
Seems to me I've seen this same rant, on and off, since the 1950s. Colleges suck, professors suck, students don't get a real (tm) education. The solution is the author's particular brand of snake oil.
Here, the solution is "The Virtual University", which Schank never says anything about except that it uses computers. Got news for you -- people have been trying to use computers in education since the 1960s, with "programmed instruction". There are a few minor successes (typing tutor programs come to mind), but by and large, they have failed miserably.
IMHO, Schank has very little understanding of the purposes and goals of a University education. The interview was littered with fallacies. A few of the more glaring ones --
* Tests and exams are "bad". But how do the students rate their own progress?
* Prerequsites are "bad". Ever been in a class with an obnoxious moron without the prerequisites, who nags the professor to explain things he should already know?
* Required survey courses are "bad". Students are expected to be familiar with all aspects of a field when they enter it.
* Tenure is "bad". Professors should be fired for expressing politically unpopular opinions, or for being "dead wood" (whatever that means).
* Like many modern academics, he does not see the difference between a university and a trade school.
These are just the ones that come to mind immediately. There are more.
There are certainly problems with University education. But they're not going to be solved by someone who can't even come up with an answer to the question "Why should I go to Harvard instead of the University of Maryland?" (Hint -- who are your classmates?)
If Schank thinks so highly of his Virtual University, let him get off his butt and build it. I agree fully with the other posters who have said that it will either be a diploma mill or a long, expensive Microsoft commercial.
I've heard all of the complaints that Schank makes about college education before, and perhaps I'm being heretical, but I just don't buy them. Where I go to school, I take interesting classes from important researchers in the field who also want to teach students what they know, and are often quite good at it. In my upper-level classes, I'm quite aware that my professors are giving me their opinions, rather than unquestionable truths- and so does everyone else in the class. Those of us who are qualified to take upper-level college classes are also qualified to think critically.
And while it's true that if you ask most people why they're going to college, they'll say it's so that they can get a good job or something, that's just camouflage- I have honestly yet to meet someone who isn't in college because they're excited about learning beneath all the layers of "I hate school" socialization. I would be surprised if my university is atypical in those respects among upper universities.
-jacob
I think the idea of distributing the course notes to the students is a nice idea, but course lectures should be more than just listening and taking notes. You're paying 25+k to attend RPI and you "zone out" in class? If you're not in class and/or not paying attention, what are you wasting your money for?? Learning isn't a process of just listening or reguritating solutions to the examples the professor includes in his/her notes.. It's all about thinking about what your professors/mentors/friends/family/etc. are telling you, and asking questions or challenging their ideas from time to time.. Do yourself a favor, either find yourself something you can stay interested in throughout an hour lecture, or save your folks money and get the hell out of the way of students who are their to actually learn... I'm a grad student at Clarkson University and see how the apathy of a few kids like you can drag down a whole class. If you don't really love what you're doing, get out now and make room for someone who does..
Currently in Alberta (way up here in Canada) I am aware of two virtual High School programs. rvvs.com is the Rockyview Virtual School and schoolofhope.org is another home schooling program. Combined with a cable modem and a P2 the RVVS is filling an education need for kids that have kids already and those for whom whatever reason cannot attend regular classes.
Of course the parents are also involved in the child's online education and is kept up to date on lesson plans and what is due when via email.
In some cases I see the parents needing to learn about the Internet in order to keep up with thier children learning online. Seems like a good opportunity for parent and child to share time and knowledge with each other. I have even had some of the parents tell me they are so excited with the experience they are looking for continuing adult education courses online.
Anything that promotes learning and the shunning of Jerry Springer and rest of that genre of television is a good thing to me.
So much to learn so little time.
I have TA'd an undergraduate Lab course off and on for the last 3 years, and I can assure you that students rarely learn as much from lecture or hours with their noses in a book as the do in five minutes with myself or the course professor.. I don't mean to sound boastful, nut students seem to learn the best when I sit down and help them work through their problems. If I don't think they're understanding a particular step in the process, I back up and explain what I'm doing in a little more detail.. That's not something a book, or an on-line lecture can provide.
How about a free virtual university, sort of like the free software movement, but with intellectuals of all subjects (instead of just techno geeks) contributing their knowledge and expertise over the Internet? Maybe with minimal administrative fees for examinations, laboratory work, etc. It would make education accessible to those who cannot afford the exorbitant tuition fees charged by the "real" unis.
My school (NJIT) offers most of their classes in a "virtual classroom" as they call it. I have taken one of these classes in the past and I am currently taking one on distributed operating systems right now. The way the classes work is that the teacher usually has a series of I think are slowly being moved over to real video, but without high bandwidth it wouldn't work as well. To keep in contact with your professor there is a message base system. This same system is used to give out the assignments where you send back your answers and the grades are later tabulated. Now, when I took my last course I have to admit that I never once watched any of the videos. You either had to pay some exorbitant amount of money (something like 60 dollars to borrow the videos plus 18 dollars shipping) or find time to go to the schools library and watch the videos there. So basically I read of skimmed over most of the book and did the few assignments and then we had to go and take an actual final exam in person. I don't really think I learned as much as I would have in an in person class. Until broadband connections are more affordable and common I don't really see learning over the internet as effective as the real thing. It allowed me to slack in learning and still end up getting an A. It might have been the subject matter however, it was a lot of information systems speak where they give new terms for topics you could think of normally. Maybe the class I am taking now will be a better learning experience, but I still think you would learn more having real discussions.
* Tenure is "bad". Professors should be fired for expressing politically unpopular opinions, or for being "dead wood" (whatever that means).
Check out books like "Prof Scam" to see why tenure has created an aristocracy within the university system. The notion of bein employed for life is ridiculous in our market economy. The notion that profs use tenure mainly to protect their research into unpopular ideas is farcical. It is a caste system that is exploited to pamper a chosen few.
Universities of any kind (either Virtual or "real") are here because we created them. We
want to jump hoops, to distinguish ourselves from those that can't or won't jump hoops.
"Real" U's have problems just like he says, including that they are out of touch with the
real world. First, I'm not sure they should be more in touch with the real world. Second, how
would a Virtual U. solve that "problem" (and should it)?
When I taught at a University (the dreaded Mathematics), I resisted the fashionable
trend of using "real world" problems and making students write essays for their solutions. My
goal in teaching a class (and yes, I was allowed to have goals) was not just content, but
abstraction of thinking and mathematical maturity. I don't believe those things can be
gained without a firm understanding of basic concepts. They are tools, and it is up to the student to apply them appropriately. That is, you can't build a house (the "real world")
unless you know the strength of materials (i.e. the class might teach you the properties of
wood, even though your plans are only to build houses of brick).
A virtual University will be no better (and possibly no worse) than a "real" University --
but we are limited by our expectations and social needs. I can see from the interview, he
wishes for some kind of miracle transformation to happen just because a computer is involved. Any Virtual University will still have to pass some kind of accreditation in order to be accepted as legitimate by society as a whole, and that means evaluation (including testing of the students).
TechBC may be closer to Schank's vision for a univsersity than a few others I know. We've tried to develop our course delivery models to embrace an online environment from the beginning. Too many online offerings are either just supplementary information for a lecture, or some glorified correspondance course. We've tried to change that by throwing out the old learning models (including a lecturer standing in front of a class droning on for 3 hours a week) and starting with something new.
A few features that set out TechBC from the rest (If I may get a plug in for my employer):
Some amusing points. I notices Schank was complaining about the use of Latin as an "ancient educational language". Latin is also often used as text filler, sort of an "insert your text here" when developing course material. We bucked ther trend and used Esparanto. (A quote translated from Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series, I believe).
I liked the bit about using "games" such as flight simulators to teach students. I think most of our professors who would like this idea and think it was cool.
Reading about people "drifting off" and losing interest in lectures. I've been asked to generate reports from the web logs to determine which students may be losing interest so we can give them some more attention, and make sure they're not dissatisfied with their learning experience.
Well, I've plugged enough. It's not all been roses... It's been hell to put off from the university's point of view, and we won't really know how well it works until the students have completed their first semester of courses.
Perhaps our university can shock the others into changing their ways...
Once the Internet infrastructure has matured and is firmly in place to deliver content at a high speed to (almost) everybody at home, and a well-established methodology exists to deliver educational content over this infrastructure, the marginal cost for adding one more student to the virtual university will be far cheaper than the cost for providing an education at a residential college.
Some objections to the virtual university are that the certification procedures of traditional universities will be compromised, and the loss of the community available to students at a residential college. It is possible that universities will implement an automated form of certification, which will test for knowledge in a different fashion from the traditional university, since the "closed book" examination becomes unenforceable when the student is in a remote location. Primarily for this and other similar reasons, the certification procedure of the digital university is likely to be less rigorous than its traditional counterpart.
As for the loss of community, it is likely to be a sacrifice many are willing to make in order to receive the degree at a lower cost from the digital university.
As LL mentions, some form of traditional university system has existed for many centuries. It would be a shame to sacrifice this system on the altar of greater numerical efficiency provided by a digital university.
Though he respects the student more, he still believes the solution is in better "teaching". In America, the belief is that students need to be taught. There are constant debates on how to teach students better. As many geeks experience in high-school, this is very oppressive: students aren't free to learn in their own way, they are force to play whatever game the teacher wants them to play.
For example, American education has been run on the concept for the past 20 years that we should ram facts down students throats, we should instead teach them how to think. This is extraordinarily oppressive to smart students who have cognative skills better than teachers. I remember in one college EE class where we had to calculate the Thevinin resistence. I failed the lab because I used a complete different technique than what the teacher taught. It took me a week of haranguing the teacher until he let me prove that not only did I get the correct result, but my method produced more significant figures than the "correct" method. Mine also took fewer steps, and as far as I could tell, was more intuitive. I got a B instead of an F, I should have gotten an A+.
I have looked back in the literature and found that this idea is actually even older. It is like Christmas: we all think it was more pure and less commercial in the old days. The reality is that it has been a marketing circus for 150 years. We look back on the classes in school that required rote memorization that we all forgot after the test anyway, and we say that education should be different. The general slide in American education is to teach fewer and fewer facts, and still be an utter failure at how to teach students to think. And while we all hate rote memorization, it isn't as bad as you think: for example, rote memorization of wordlists teaches foreign languages well. To still need the practical application of using the language to "set" them, but you really do have to start with the memorization process.
The funny thing is that even though tests results of grade-school education show Americans behind other developed countries, American grade-school teachers refuse to even consider foriegn school techniques as being relavent in America. Every 5 years some new education guru pops up showing new methods of teaching, and bunches of teachers flock to these new methods.
In many non-American countries, however, the model of education is must different. Let me contrast German and American university systems. I'm sure many American nerds are familiar with the oppressive American system, but they don't realize that it can be different. To start with, in Germany, you don't sign up for a class. If you want to attend lectures, you simply show up. In fact, for the first month of a term, half the students are still off on vacation. You must sign up for some things, like reserving lab time or signing up for a test.
The key here is that students are responsible for their education in Germany, but the system is responsible in America. If you are a nerd/geek, this is extraordinarily oppressive because the system doesn't take into account your special needs.
This isn't to say that German universitys don't have problems; for example they are every much as political as American ones. Also, the German culture is more oppressive for nerd/geek initiative in the first place, though it does free you to learn in your own manner.
From this perspective, I think the philosophical basis behind universities are two-fold: one, to make you a more rounded person by forcing you to take classes in subjects that aren't relavent to your career, and two, certify you as having the basic knowledge to fulfill your career. Let's say that Dr. Dobbs Journal had a certification course on programming in the C language. Their certification would test not only that the person had a full command of the language (i.e. had no problems with pointers-to-pointers) but also a grasp of basic data structures. If you looked at two candidates for a programming position, which would you rather have? A recent Computer Science graduate, who got an A in "Basic C Programming" or a Dr. Dobbs certified C specialist?
As you can see, I'm a geek who has been oppressed by the American education system who wanted to teach me how to think, so I have some pretty strong reactions to articles like this. I rather be freed to learn my own way.
- Show their students the wonders of the Universe and the joy of knowledge.
- Send their students out with a piece of paper that will get them a good job.
- Attract new students to replace the ones who are leaving.
- Convince employers and relevant other authorities that they are doing an effective job
The problem is that all these goals are incompatible, and hence the universities have to do a balancing act between them.For instance, every computer scientist in the world knows that C++ is a lousy first language to teach a computer programmer. Smalltalk, Lisp, Eiffel, Python: the list of better alternatives is endless. But high school students want a good job, so they do market research. What is the programming language most in demand by employers? C++. So they demand to be taught C++ by the universities, and the universities respond to the demand.
Somewhere in the system there has to be quality control, otherwise everybody goes in for a race to the bottom. How do you find out what kind of a job the university is doing? You look at what the students have to know to graduate. To find that out, you look at the curriculum and examination papers. Other important criteria, such as an enquiring approach the world, cannot be measured and so don't count.
In "What Do You Care What Other People Think", Richard Feynman told a story about a sabatical in (IIRC) Brazil to teach in a university there. He found that the students just learned by rote memorisation, never asked questions, and completely failed to understand what they were being taught.
Overall I think that this guy has some important points to make, but if he doesn't pay attention to the need to produce a standardised product then he isn't going to get anywhere.
And you do need standardisation in education. If you are planning to hire a graduate you need to know what you are getting. A degree certificate tells you that.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
in the long run, i think this type of education tends to turn the education process into a trade school. "just the facts, we're trying to conserve bandwidth".
please don't turn the universities into the equivalent of a virtual ITT tech.
for all the people that hated general ed requirements, i am one of the lucky ones that enjoyed them as much as my cs classes -- abstract thinking, questions that have no answer, thoughts and processes that run counter to mainstream thinking, beliefs and pursuasions that are unpopular. an exposure to which developed my critical thinking skills.
and i hate to bring this tie in, but none other than Billgatus of Microshaft is a HUGE supporter of the "Virtual University". Brainwashing, anyone? Perhaps every few hundred screen refreshes could etch a subliminal image of Bill Gates on an a throne, bestowing his infinite wisom and courage down to the grateful (m)asses...but I digress.
Plus, a big part of the university is close contact with other students, from different places. many people enjoy their first (and often lasting) love through university; others find many loves...you know the type!
It's a way of maturing into a quality member of society that goes way beyond the "boring slides in my boring classes". Ha, as though you would be more excited by flipping through web pages!
At least in the class room you can catch the eye of that attractive student three rows over and one seat back!
But I do want to address one thing I found particularly noxious in this article:
Roger Schank lost his credibility with this vertern of the PLATO project when he, as an "AI expert":
deplores the curriculum-based, drill-oriented methods in today's schools
The most advanced drill and practice methods match almost exactly some of the stimulus-response pair training schedules for neural networks that drive learning from short term (shallow imprint) to long term (deep imprint) memory. Since I've implemented such neural network training schedulers and deployed them in real world human neural networks imprisoned in the Illinois Department of Corrections as well as in image processing systems, I have no doubt as to their efficacy. By the way, it isn't complicated. All you do is present the top of a stimulus/response queue, get a response, and if the response is correct, shove the s/r pair further back in the presentation queue, else if it is wrong, insert it close to the head of the queue. Common sense -- at least in hind-sight. For anyone who has worked with artificial neural net training algorithms, one can see how such parsimony of presentation could speed learning significantly. The only trick is calculating how far back in the queue one needs to shove the s/r pair.
Anyway, the PLATO prison project (which used such drill and practice as one of its primary tools) was the most successful demonstration of computer based education's potential up until that time (late 70s). The GED success rate of prisoners under that sort of drill and practice sky-rocketed compared to prisoners who were put in classrooms unaided by computers.
Seastead this.
--
--
"Insert witty quote here."
Amen. Finally, someone who told the truth and so eloquently at that. Although I do not agree that Virtual Us are the answers to the problems facing students, I do agree though that higher education system does need major reform.
:-)
Learn by doing --what a wonderful concept! Anyone will admit this beats siting passively in a dimmed classroom for hours on end looking at slide projections.
I couldn't imagine a bigger waste of time for my graduate students than to take a course in numerical processing by computers when they were trying to build smart machines. One thing had nothing to do with the other... The requirement was there because of political compromise.
I can really relate to that. Get rid of the unnecessary required courses. If it is not related to what I am going to do in the future, I should have the choice not to take it. Now, if only I can tell my numerical analysis teacher.
Get ride of tenure. I think this is one of the greatest evils of higher education. It breads unwanted politics and creates some of the worst professors to ever teach, since some do not have to worry about being fired if they teach poorly.
-slams
-slams
Jeez, yet another american re-invents the Open University! I hate to tell you guys but Britain has had a "Virtual University" up and running since around the 1960's, and it's very successful. Lectures are disseminated via radio, slack time in late-night/early morning TV schedules, and nowadays the Internet too.
In the year I've been frequenting Slashdot I do believe this is the highest signal-to-noise discussion I've read. Kudos to all the insightful and thought provoking commentators.
My wife has one degree from the OU, and is currently studying for a Masters.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
I didn't read the entire article, and I had to stop after the second page (I'll read it all later). One of the biggest problems is saw were some VERY sad and mistaken impressions about what university "life" is all about. What's the big deal about campus life? So you go get hammered night after night, and end up in bed with some chick you've never met, and would probably never want to meet again. Is this what I'd be missing???? Boo-frickin'-hoo! And let's see...interacting with the faculty - that would consist of what...sitting in an auditorium with 450 other students, listening to a droll, monotone voice emanating somewhere from the front, and trying to tie what's being said with some hastily compiled overheads??? Oh man! I can feel the emptiness now! Having spent some time in a college dorm, there were both pros and cons. On the positive side, there actually were *some* students that were there to learn, and I enjoyed their candor. On the other hand, far too many of them were there to "have a good time." And indeed, whatever their perverted idea of a "good time" was, they did it. While I don't completely discount the validity of getting an education *at* a university, things will have to change quite a bit before I can honestly say I've missed out on something.
I didn't read the entire article, and I had to stop after the second page (I'll read it all later). One of the biggest problems is saw were some VERY sad and mistaken impressions about what university "life" is all about. What's the big deal about campus life? So you go get hammered night after night, and end up in bed with some chick you've never met, and would probably never want to meet again. Is this what I'd be missing???? Boo-frickin'-hoo! And let's see...interacting with the faculty - that would consist of what...sitting in an auditorium with 450 other students, listening to a droll, monotone voice emanating somewhere from the front, and trying to tie what's being said with some hastily compiled overheads??? Oh man! I can feel the emptiness now!
Having spent some time in a college dorm, there were both pros and cons. On the positive side, there actually were *some* students that were there to learn, and I enjoyed their candor. On the other hand, far too many of them were there to "have a good time." And indeed, whatever their perverted idea of a "good time" was, they did it.
While I don't completely discount the validity of getting an education *at* a university, things will have to change quite a bit before I can honestly say I've missed out on something.
When real people are actually REAL, I have no problem with interaction. It's all the phoniness, the posturing, the cheating, the lying, etc., that tend to skew my emphasis toward other endeavors. Other than that, I eat well, get plenty of exercise, limit my consumption of pop, use incandescent lights, and well, as for girlfriends, it's all a matter of priorities.
Online/virtual courses is not going to make a difference...the requirements are still going to be there...you just get to read a poetry web page instead of sitting in a class.
:), they are getting to be just as good if not better than a bachelor degree. They are an indication that you actually know what would be useful to a company, whereas with a college degree it is a potluck deal.
:)
People say that when you can get the "degree" elsewhere, then things will change. I think that the MCSE, MCSD, CNE, etc... are the very beginnings of this. At least in the computer field, the only one I care about
I graduated with people who now have CS degrees that can't use a computer. You give them some source on a floppy disk and they are confused...if the IDE can't do it for them, they are lost. I remember someone being amazed because a program I did had an option to format a disk. When asked how, I told them I just started a shell and called format. You'd think I had started speaking latin!!!
I still remember college - I guess I'm not that old yet...though I am old enough to think all the current popular music sucks
The good part that I remember is that in the computer science curriculum, we actually learned some theory that was then applied to a real language. In my CS II class (linked lists, binary trees, etc...) we could turn in our assignments in any language we choose, just as long as they did what they should.
The bad parts I remember are:
1) Required core courses...Poetry? Why oh why?
2) Many of my profs hadn't learned much since they got out of school, so my computer architecture class, while still relevant, mainly covered the PDP-11 and it's CPU style. My assembly class was in IBM 370 Assembly.
3) Like the article said - many profs seemed to teach as if research was your ultimate goal. In my networking course, we learned 0% usefull info. Nothing about any real network topologies. We learned about packet collisions and test questions were along the lines of "If you have machine a sending to machine b, with a repeater a x feet, and assuming 30% network usage, how long would it take the packet to go from a to b". We then had to compute electron speed, latency at the repeater, etc...
Real friggin useful!
4) Graduate work. My school required 10 classes at the grad level. While an undergrad, I had taken five courses dually offered. There were a few difference between the way they were taught:
- Computer Graphics : no difference in the material or projects
- Artificial Intelligence : Grads had to do 5 extra pages on the final paper
- Compiler Design : Grads had to implement a for loop...I did it anyway.
- Operating Systems : Grads had to implement something extra - did that too...
- and some fifth one with no difference
Yet, to get a grad degree there, I'd have to retake those courses, or other ones. All the schools care about is one thing - you paying.
The Capitalists in a Free Market would never create an independent individual. They just don't create money for you (the capitalist). The tax, banking, and education systems are meant to hold the individual inside the system while at the same time creating both a *better way* and distorting what people want.
The person at the school asks, "Who do you want to be like when you grow up Johnny?". Did they ever ask if you wanted to be an individual?? Work for yourself? Create something revolutionary?...
Look at our system it works great for the wealthy and real poorly for the individual. I have no real beaf with the wealthy except that the amount of time spent on getting wealthy deprieves the Human race from getting anywhere......
(sorry for being so one sided/negative to the system, it was meant to give one very opposite view to the question at hand)
For example, a 3d VRML 'campus', where you can go to talk to professors or administrators or other students for assistance.
Within the next year or two, seminars will be conducted in videoconferencing sessions, making the need to actually be physically present at the school almost zero.
As it is right now, I spend 1 and a half days on campus a week, the rest at home.
I observed classes in the traditional college dominated by some "talkative" student, a lot of brilliant but shy people chose to learn at home what they don't understand rather than asking questions in a crowded class.
We know that shy people should come out from their "shyness" and traditional classes will encourage them to talk by providing such environment but with so many students and so little time...eventually they keep quiet until end of the session.
some shy people actually have some bright questions and ideas that can help others student to understand a possible case, they just don't dare to speak it out..........
Some people will learn a lot in real classes, some (not only the shy ones) will benefit from virtual learning, that's what I believe, what's your opinion?
I am basically enrolled in a virtual university. It is actually Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. However, I listen to my lectures via a RealAudio stream. I converse with my peers via a UseNet-style newsgroup. Both of these lose something without human contact but gain things from association with a computer too.
While I listen to my lectures, I am connected to the Internet, so I can look up terms on Internet encylopedias and dictionaries and get some background info. Similarly with the newsgroups, but unlike a tutorial discussion, you can look back at weeks of discussion and follow several arguments concurrently. No-one interrupts me mid-thought either!
Admittedly, I do still go to campus every week, but only for a couple of hours, and that's not bad for a 2/3rds loading.
Andrew Scott
Foreword:
... CRAP mostly !
,ew innovative pedagogic programs, to teach myself.
Internet is like air :
80% Advertizing, commercial crap
19% Sex
1% "Good" knowledge, interesting articles
~ Science dusts
-Internet- the leading edge technology of the communication science is design to broadcast
The life:
What's the meaning of learning ? does we have to study at college and after what ? your cerebral neurons begin the long dying process !
The brain is like the (male) sex : he's design to work all the live, and like the sex you've to train your brain all the live to get a better feeling.
My hope:
How many people can say I'm the best teacher in xyz science area ? R: Only one (best = superlative).
My hope is to meet a day a Virtual university, with video courses of the world best teachers.
With a online support section, where fleelance student can get help.
With the best excercices to train your new skills, with solutions and demos.
A place where I can enjoy
Throw away your diplomas, dont stop your mind there or they'll become a pathetic paper.
Enjoy the science, incrase the world human knowledge level by your own personnal studies.
Be autodidact !
My job is tech support for a statewide "distance learning" network. While I agree with a lot of things in the interview (mainly, that lecture based courses are overused and simulations are under applied) I have to say that, at least in my state, virtualizing the University is _not_ going to force a change of format (to WWW) and thus a change of technique. We are rolling out lectures as well, both one way (via cable, nationwide) and two-way (via a growing private ATM network and eventually via public xDSL.)
a) stay in school for five years, take crap like "poetry" and "water aerobics", then graduate knowing a whole lot of C++ and nothing else, and start out making about $30K -OR-
b) drop out, get a lower-level IT job which not only gives me experience and on-the-job training but also free MCSE, Cisco, Novell certification courses, make $16K this year, $24K next, $30K next, and by the time my friends graduate, $40K.
Think this is fanciful? Hardly. Many of us forget that common folk are not as nerdy as we are. They know nothing about computers, and big companies pay top dollar for young punks like me to teach them how to empty the recycle bin.
P.S. Testimonial: I know a guy, dropped out of high school, now 19 years old, LAN admin, makes $118K. Yes.
----
----
If we're not supposed to eat cows, why are they made out of steak?
somehow.