If the US News & World Report model actually captures good things about a university, then what's wrong with attempting to match that model?
That a university tries to match what it considers a good model shouldn't be surprising. The validity of the model may be questioned. The methods to match the institution to that model may be questioned. But I don't see how attempting to get better under some model they consider good (by whatever criteria they pick) is bad.
I don't know enough about it to know if the USNews model is any good - maybe, maybe not. But I know that institutions I'm generally familiar with land about where I might expect in the rankings. Ivy leagues on top, small underfunded state colleges much lower.
Now, the claim that Clemson administrators purposefully rank other universities lower, that's a different matter. That is the most troubling claim to me in the whole bit. That action is highly unethical and I would be sorry to find out that it is true of Clemson, or anywhere for that matter.
True for me - I'm one of the 14% the article says can't get broadband. But I would love to. I live in a very rural area. No DSL or cable available. Satellite is maybe just possible (have to cut a few trees further up the mountain to find out) and very expensive. We don't even have cell coverage at the house. Dial up it is.
I'm glad there's only 14% in that category. I just wish I wasn't.
And yes, I'll have some cheese with my whine...
Yes, things like:
-Halo
-Video editing
-Statistical analysis for hundreds of thousands of data points
-Half-Life
-Videoconferencing
-Google Earth
Sure, software has bloated, but remember all these things you couldn't do in any reasonable amount of time on an older machine.
Sorry for being obvious.
Schools can throw all the technology they want at kids, but computers alone won't give children an education.
Teachers must be properly trained to use this technology to its fullest.
I think you're getting at something important here - the use of computers in education isn't just a matter of the computer (hardware or software) or getting them into a classroom. Computers by themselves do nothing, they require training for teachers not just in basic computer use, but in how to use educational software and incorporate it into their teaching. It also takes training to help the kids learn to use the computers and the software (possibly requiring less resources than to train the teachers). Computers also require a support system - techs to install them, admins to keep the network up, etc. This is a massive investment!
It makes the local headlines to say you've bought laptops for every kid in the school - but did they also spend on training and tech support?
A group of folks from Emory and Georgia Tech have already done this for a few patients who have little or no other means to communicate. I saw a talk run by the GVU center here at Georgia Tech a few years ago about their successful trials with two patients.
Here's an old press release from Emory. Note the date.
There's a theory of human error called the "swiss cheese model" (Developed by James Reason) that points out that it usually takes several failures or bypasses to result in a true error. IMHO, the proximal/immediate failure in these cases (maybe in this case depending on how it works?) is users indiscriminately opening attachments. Yet, there are other, less immediate failures such as the viral attachment getting through the mail reader and network, whatever exploit it uses in the system, etc. All of these must be in place for the failure to occur.
In other words, there's pleanty of blame to go around.
There has been some research on general aviation with respect to a wearable computer that leads you through a task. In this paper (disclaimer - blatent plug for colleagues) pilots do their pre-flight inspection of the plane with different types of assistance from the computer.
The interesting result is that the subjects would follow the procedure the computer gave them very closely - so closely they would ignore steps in the standard procedure (that they are required to do) that the computer didn't tell them to do.
I think we need to look much more carefully into these before people use them seriously.
Great! Now I'll know sooner what the latest pop culture craze is so I can "be different" and follow everyone else to stay popular! Then I can put that information in my blog and let everyone else know I'm following the latest trend!
Seriously, just read/. if you want to know the important stuff of the day.:)
A series of reviews of this book (including the one in the parent) is also found on the Risks Digest with a more positive opinion of the book by Don Norman:
This is probably due to the fact that only people that have had extremely positive or extremely negative experiences with a particular product will actually take the time to post.
Very true. This is a problem with nearly any measurement that involves voluntary surveys, such as course surveys in universities or those little comment cards on the restarurant table.
I personally look for the reviews with 2-4 stars for stuff on Amazon, specifically hoping to get a more balanced review. If they happen to be a "Top X" reviewer, fine as long as they're relatively detailed in the good and bad of the product. Lots of stars is hardly the only factor we should use!
I think one reason we (or at least I) like Tom Baker's doctor is his facial expressions. Who (ha ha!) can forget the hilarious look on his face he gets that's somewhere between bewilderment and stupidity. Absolutely he could deliver the lines, but we won't get his face and body movements.
Doesn't mean he shouldn't do it, but that half his greatness won't be there.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up please
If the US News & World Report model actually captures good things about a university, then what's wrong with attempting to match that model?
That a university tries to match what it considers a good model shouldn't be surprising. The validity of the model may be questioned. The methods to match the institution to that model may be questioned. But I don't see how attempting to get better under some model they consider good (by whatever criteria they pick) is bad.
I don't know enough about it to know if the USNews model is any good - maybe, maybe not. But I know that institutions I'm generally familiar with land about where I might expect in the rankings. Ivy leagues on top, small underfunded state colleges much lower.
Now, the claim that Clemson administrators purposefully rank other universities lower, that's a different matter. That is the most troubling claim to me in the whole bit. That action is highly unethical and I would be sorry to find out that it is true of Clemson, or anywhere for that matter.
True for me - I'm one of the 14% the article says can't get broadband. But I would love to. I live in a very rural area. No DSL or cable available. Satellite is maybe just possible (have to cut a few trees further up the mountain to find out) and very expensive. We don't even have cell coverage at the house. Dial up it is. I'm glad there's only 14% in that category. I just wish I wasn't. And yes, I'll have some cheese with my whine...
Yes, things like: -Halo -Video editing -Statistical analysis for hundreds of thousands of data points -Half-Life -Videoconferencing -Google Earth Sure, software has bloated, but remember all these things you couldn't do in any reasonable amount of time on an older machine. Sorry for being obvious.
I think you're getting at something important here - the use of computers in education isn't just a matter of the computer (hardware or software) or getting them into a classroom. Computers by themselves do nothing, they require training for teachers not just in basic computer use, but in how to use educational software and incorporate it into their teaching. It also takes training to help the kids learn to use the computers and the software (possibly requiring less resources than to train the teachers). Computers also require a support system - techs to install them, admins to keep the network up, etc. This is a massive investment!
It makes the local headlines to say you've bought laptops for every kid in the school - but did they also spend on training and tech support?
Here's an old press release from Emory. Note the date.
In other words, there's pleanty of blame to go around.
Oops. Try this link instead.
The interesting result is that the subjects would follow the procedure the computer gave them very closely - so closely they would ignore steps in the standard procedure (that they are required to do) that the computer didn't tell them to do.
I think we need to look much more carefully into these before people use them seriously.
Seriously, just read /. if you want to know the important stuff of the day. :)
Don Norman's praise,
Rob Slade's review (same issue), and
Don Norman's response to Slade's review
Very true. This is a problem with nearly any measurement that involves voluntary surveys, such as course surveys in universities or those little comment cards on the restarurant table.
I personally look for the reviews with 2-4 stars for stuff on Amazon, specifically hoping to get a more balanced review. If they happen to be a "Top X" reviewer, fine as long as they're relatively detailed in the good and bad of the product. Lots of stars is hardly the only factor we should use!
"Ack, they've changed the main character! What's that going to do to the continuity of the series?!?!?"
Ah well, we have to have something to argue about. Let the religious wars over what is in the Cannon commence...
Doesn't mean he shouldn't do it, but that half his greatness won't be there.
Some researchers are actively investigating online communities. At least ones where the reason for the community to exist is educational.
The Collaborative Software Laboratory
Electronic Learning Communities
I think the "reason to exist" for many communities is so members can learn from each other. Thus, this research should be widely applicable.
Disclaimer: I am a student at Georgia Tech, but not associated with either of these labs