How about Galileo, Newton, and most of the other early scientists? They were working with purely intellectual matters, and most did it for the sake of knowing/learning/moving forward. Profit hasn't always been at the center of innovation. Sure, it has played a part - people do like to get paid - but there is a whole other set of reasons for doing things. Reasons like to help mankind. Pride is another one. How about the whole weapons industry - from the stone age onward? Is that purely profit? (ok, today it is). Going from the sticks, to stone weapons, to metals took innovation, which may or may not have been based on profit.
Today most innovations are technology related it doesn't mean the reasons are purely profit driven.
I can see how it might be, but I don't know if all of the facts are in. Consider:
[less likely] This is a public university, supported by the state, hence the professor is a state employee. Anything created by an agent of the state is public domain [may vary by state]
[more likely] Paying tuition is a contract to receive the information. This isn't a license to "use" the material such as a software license, this is a direct "transfer" of knowledge, as in "I am required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects" to get a good grade. If I contract out for information [even code] I take full ownership of that material - and can do as I please with it. The contract is for the knowledge. The professor can't revoke my knowledge of the material at will.
[unknown] A lecture is a presentation of facts, not for entertainment purposes. Can facts be copyrighted?
specific interpretations of facts can be copyrighted, but is that what we have here?
If that was the case, wouldn't discussing research journals in class be considered a copyright violation? The professor is doing a public performance of copyrighted material, and for current research may not have permission to do that from the journal/author [textbooks are probably different].
Because employers don't tend to take Joe-off-the-street and hire them.
There are some companies that do thorough testing of applicants for knowledge, but for most employers, it takes a college transcript to get in the door.
If this wasn't the case, people could actually be hired based on knowledge/performance. That isn't the way the system works. Employers like to see transcripts to ease the hiring process. They can set a bar: 3.0GPA. Doesn't matter what classes - did they learn? [or play the game well]
A dedicated person could find most/all of the material in any degree much faster/cheaper on the internet or with just textbooks compared to spending $20k/yr for the grade on a piece of paper.
but employers don't have ways to quantify that. Paying tuition gets that piece of paper that gets you in the door.
There is a huge difference between a play and a lecture.
A play is for entertainment, lectures are for education. Lectures are designed to transfer knowledge. The students are paying for the access and presentation of the material - most of which is already known.
Students will be tested on this knowledge and assigned a grade for it. This grade may be used as a part of their overall employment rating. The risk of missing something is quite a bit higher depending on the setting too.
This also leads to ownership questions. If a lecture consists of "facts", which it should, who owns it?
My last question would be: what would the professor's reaction be if a student recorded the lectures and sold them for $1.50 or gave them away?
Who owns the information? To me, tuition is essentially a contract. I pay the instructor to present the information to me, after which I own all the rights and have the responsibility to learn it. Maybe my idea isn't the right one, but paying ever increasing tuition rates for "the same material" as past years just seems wrong.
It could be quite simple - let the students do it.
In almost every class, some students have a vast knowledge in many areas, and excel at the subject, some with spare time too, and can probably explain it on a much more understandable level to fellow students.
An assignment for a group of 10 studnets to compile, edit, and submit a finished chapter to the professor as a final project in a class of 200+ calc students should produce a pretty quick, relatively readable, and usable book in one semester. A review by the math department would allow this to be ready for release for the next year - at least in a working draft form. After that, it should be small revisions and such to make it better - small incremental changes.
Very interesting reply. I heartily agree with you too.
The problem is that most universities are no longer interested in the students as customers. From what I can see, they are interested in athletics and research - not education at all. Students are treated as a) a great locked in source of income [transferring from one school to another is a hassle and results in lost credits, etc] b) an inconvenience when they actually try to get their money's worth.
If students were treated as "customers" would schools be able to raise tuition 10% every year? or 20% every 3 or 4 years?
Students are also to blame here too - because they don't rise up and demand 10% more services when their tuition goes up 10%. From what I have seen, the end game of this thing called college is that piece of paper - and doing as little work as possible from both students and administrators is the norm.
After teaching for 8 years now as several different titles [TA, grad TA, Lecturer, etc] I have never once reported attendance to the department, college, or school. In fact, I have only ever taken attendance the first couple days for those "if you don't show up the first day, you are dropped" classes. This is at a public state university, which brags about the state/federal funding and such. If there is a link/reference, I would love to see it. I am now teaching a large lecture style class and I am interested in making it valuable for the students to show up, and this is a perfect topic for me.
As a student, I hated classes that graded on attendance, for the same reasons given by many others - if I choose to not go, it is my money, etc. What does sitting in the class do for learning?
However, as an instructor, I value the interaction - and getting students to talk has been my most difficult challenge. When presented with the opportunity to change the class away from a lecture setting, how should it be handled? What should the format be? I don't know. Still thinking about that one, and trying some things.
Slashdot Mirror
How about Galileo, Newton, and most of the other early scientists? They were working with purely intellectual matters, and most did it for the sake of knowing/learning/moving forward. Profit hasn't always been at the center of innovation. Sure, it has played a part - people do like to get paid - but there is a whole other set of reasons for doing things. Reasons like to help mankind. Pride is another one.
How about the whole weapons industry - from the stone age onward? Is that purely profit? (ok, today it is). Going from the sticks, to stone weapons, to metals took innovation, which may or may not have been based on profit.
Today most innovations are technology related it doesn't mean the reasons are purely profit driven.
Is it a violation of copyright?
I can see how it might be, but I don't know if all of the facts are in. Consider:
[less likely] This is a public university, supported by the state, hence the professor is a state employee. Anything created by an agent of the state is public domain [may vary by state]
[more likely] Paying tuition is a contract to receive the information. This isn't a license to "use" the material such as a software license, this is a direct "transfer" of knowledge, as in "I am required to demonstrate proficiency in all aspects" to get a good grade. If I contract out for information [even code] I take full ownership of that material - and can do as I please with it. The contract is for the knowledge. The professor can't revoke my knowledge of the material at will.
[unknown] A lecture is a presentation of facts, not for entertainment purposes. Can facts be copyrighted?
specific interpretations of facts can be copyrighted, but is that what we have here?
If that was the case, wouldn't discussing research journals in class be considered a copyright violation? The professor is doing a public performance of copyrighted material, and for current research may not have permission to do that from the journal/author [textbooks are probably different].
"Then why are you all paying for an education?"
Because employers don't tend to take Joe-off-the-street and hire them.
There are some companies that do thorough testing of applicants for knowledge, but for most employers, it takes a college transcript to get in the door.
If this wasn't the case, people could actually be hired based on knowledge/performance. That isn't the way the system works. Employers like to see transcripts to ease the hiring process. They can set a bar: 3.0GPA. Doesn't matter what classes - did they learn? [or play the game well]
A dedicated person could find most/all of the material in any degree much faster/cheaper on the internet or with just textbooks compared to spending $20k/yr for the grade on a piece of paper.
but employers don't have ways to quantify that. Paying tuition gets that piece of paper that gets you in the door.
There is a huge difference between a play and a lecture.
A play is for entertainment, lectures are for education. Lectures are designed to transfer knowledge. The students are paying for the access and presentation of the material - most of which is already known.
Students will be tested on this knowledge and assigned a grade for it. This grade may be used as a part of their overall employment rating. The risk of missing something is quite a bit higher depending on the setting too.
This also leads to ownership questions. If a lecture consists of "facts", which it should, who owns it?
My last question would be: what would the professor's reaction be if a student recorded the lectures and sold them for $1.50 or gave them away?
Who owns the information? To me, tuition is essentially a contract. I pay the instructor to present the information to me, after which I own all the rights and have the responsibility to learn it. Maybe my idea isn't the right one, but paying ever increasing tuition rates for "the same material" as past years just seems wrong.
It could be quite simple - let the students do it.
In almost every class, some students have a vast knowledge in many areas, and excel at the subject, some with spare time too, and can probably explain it on a much more understandable level to fellow students.
An assignment for a group of 10 studnets to compile, edit, and submit a finished chapter to the professor as a final project in a class of 200+ calc students should produce a pretty quick, relatively readable, and usable book in one semester. A review by the math department would allow this to be ready for release for the next year - at least in a working draft form. After that, it should be small revisions and such to make it better - small incremental changes.
Very interesting reply. I heartily agree with you too.
The problem is that most universities are no longer interested in the students as customers. From what I can see, they are interested in athletics and research - not education at all. Students are treated as a) a great locked in source of income [transferring from one school to another is a hassle and results in lost credits, etc] b) an inconvenience when they actually try to get their money's worth.
If students were treated as "customers" would schools be able to raise tuition 10% every year? or 20% every 3 or 4 years?
Students are also to blame here too - because they don't rise up and demand 10% more services when their tuition goes up 10%. From what I have seen, the end game of this thing called college is that piece of paper - and doing as little work as possible from both students and administrators is the norm.
After teaching for 8 years now as several different titles [TA, grad TA, Lecturer, etc] I have never once reported attendance to the department, college, or school. In fact, I have only ever taken attendance the first couple days for those "if you don't show up the first day, you are dropped" classes. This is at a public state university, which brags about the state/federal funding and such. If there is a link/reference, I would love to see it. I am now teaching a large lecture style class and I am interested in making it valuable for the students to show up, and this is a perfect topic for me.
As a student, I hated classes that graded on attendance, for the same reasons given by many others - if I choose to not go, it is my money, etc. What does sitting in the class do for learning?
However, as an instructor, I value the interaction - and getting students to talk has been my most difficult challenge. When presented with the opportunity to change the class away from a lecture setting, how should it be handled? What should the format be? I don't know. Still thinking about that one, and trying some things.