There are other necessary components for teaching/education: unless you cover them what you reduced in lecturing costs is not getting you any closer to the desired result.
By reducing lecturing costs you are freeing up more resources for those things. Assuming you can spend those additional resources with non-negative return, you can improve the other necessary components. This was, explicitly, addressed in GP; even in the paragraph you quoted.
If you can't do that, you just don't change the non-lecture bits at all, and get the same education quality at less cost.
He's not saying it will disappear, but that it's changing. IT jobs will continue to exist, but they'll be moving to service providers rather than being kept in-house.
The problem is that the whole large-scale outsourcing of government IT to private service providers isn't some kind of bold new prediction. It is what government has done since IT existed.
Which, of course, is why one of the layers of bureaucracy that Newsome complains about in government exists -- that is, specifically, the layer of bureaucracy dedicated to overseeing IT contracts (of including yet another set of outsourced vendors doing oversight, that also have to be overseen.)
And, actually, in government its even worse, in that the firms actually doing the work are often subcontractors, where the primary contractor is a firm whose specialty is navigating the government contracting systems and winning government contracts.
It seems to me that the problem with online education is being able to prove what you have learned. I can learn Calculus online at Khan Academy or at my local community college. I'll probably learn Calculus better at Khan Academy and for less money. But, I cannot use that knowledge to get a degree nor would I have any other way of proving my knowledge to other schools or potential employers. Do you have a solution to this problem?
Apropos of this, a number of MOOCs -- don't know if Khan is doing this as well -- are engaging in experimentatl partnerships with degree-granting institutions for hybrid courses where the MOOC is a central component of the combined course, but there is a live component and exams as well.
Actually, artillery and rocketry were among the earliest fields to have computers devoted to them, and getting to the moon used some of the most advanced computers then available.
Using classroom time for student project work with instructor in-person interaction without sacrificing lecture (by moving the lecture out of classroom time) does bring a benefit. Its probably a more significant benefit for secondary education than university education (though for many large university courses, it allows eliminating the cost of a large lecture hall for a mass, noninteractive lecture course and frees up the space for more productive use, while otherwise preserving the model of the course of a lecture where interaction is impossible + smaller discussion sections where lecture is practical.)
Even the MOOCs don't have mechanisms for giving students meaningful feedback
Well, yeah, the free option is less than ideal (though valuable); hybrid systems which use a MOOC-like online component for delivering lecture (some of these are actually now being built by integrating existing MOOCs, though non-massive online lecture components in the same role have been used for hybrid online/in-person teaching since the late 1990s, and IIRC there were some similar things done with television-based courses even earlier) with in-class projects with interaction with a live instructor are another model.
That's not teaching, at the best that's "lecturing".
While lecturing is necessary, it is by no way sufficient in most of the cases.
By reducing the per-student cost and increasing the convenience of the -- as you note, necessary -- lecture component of the teaching, you are increasing the resources available, all other things being equal, for all other necessary components. Thereby, improving education overall. Lecturing doesn't have to be sufficient on its own for increasing the efficiency of delivering the lecture component to be sufficient to enable overall improvements.
Software engineering is not programming either. Software engineering is really about how to manage programming projects.
No, "how to manage programming projects" isn't software engineering. "How to manage programming projects" is IT Project Management.
Software engineering is how to design software systems (particularly, large software systems). The CS:Software Engineering relationship is loosely analogous to the Physics : Aerospace Engineering relationship.
I don't see technology as inhabiting much of the universe of effective teaching.
Pens, pencils, books, paper, whiteboards, blackboards, writing systems, and numerals are all technology, just as much as computers, digital projectors, the internet, video conferencing, etc. are. They might be older technology, and many of them were probably rejected by people invested in the educational techniques they were used to when they were first introduced. To reject "technology" as outside of the universe of effective teaching is, well, ludicrous
For computers and the internet, we're still in a fairly experimental stage of working out how to use them to improve education, though there has been some pretty good work done on some techniques.
A good teacher with deep subject understanding and good communication skills is always going to be better than a crappy teacher festooned with the latest IT.
Perhaps, but you've got one too many independent variables there to say anything meaningful about the value of technology. The question is whether all other things -- including general teaching skill and subject matter knowlesge -- being equal the appropriate use of modern technologies can improve teaching, not whether modern technology is a good alternative to teaching skill.
What makes a college system effective is not and never has been the use of technology.
What makes a college system effective is, and has always been, effective use of all resources available for education, including whatever technology is available.
Why? What do "today's tech/IT settings" bring to the table that is of actual benefit to the learning environment?
The ability to deliver lecture outside of the fixed time and space of classroom time, enabling the use of classroom time for more productive interaction.
I don't see the point of a lecture anymore. Why not make each class into a movie and show that movie? Then have lab hours to work on the problems.
This is actually the core of a pretty significant modern trend, "flip teaching" (or "inverted instruction", or a bunch of similar names), in which lecture is done through video (usually delivered online) outside of class time and class time is used for student work with direct instructor interaction, essentially reversing the in-class lecture, out-of-class "homework" model.
OTOH, if you've spent an entire professional career getting things down under the classical educational model, I can see why you'd be resistant to adopt new models over what you've made work well.
The Posse Comitatus Act is coupled with, and defined by, the Insurrection Act of 1807. Basically, it limits the president's power. The North Dakota sheriff in question here is likely not the president.
This is wildly inaccurate. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits anyone from using the army or air force for law enforcement purposes without specific legal (Constitutional or statutory) authorization (18 USC Sec. 1385: "Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
"); since the Insurrection Act grants specific powers to the President in this regard (see 10 USC Sec. 331-336), the Posse Comitatus Act, viewed in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, limits the President less than anyone else, not more.
Well, looks like we can just wipe our collective asses with the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes without specific statutory authority.
There is also specific statutory authority providing specific protocols for military support to law enforcement, which are fairly broad when it comes to anything other than military troops actually directly making arrests or acting directly as armed enforcers.
Computer science is a field that overlaps with web development, but getting a computer science degree to become a web developer is like getting a zoology degree to become a veterinarian. Close, but no cigar.
Becoming a veterinarian requires graduate education; zoology is a pretty reasonable undergraduate degree to get before going to Vet school. So unless you are saying that getting a CS degree is one of many very good options for completing a necessary first step on the way to becoming a web developer (which, while it might be true, doesn't seem like what you are trying to say), this probably wasn't the analogy you were looking for.
So here's the deal: I'm in my second year of a computer science degree, and the thought of wasting two more years, getting left in the dust, and becoming irrelevant has me horrified. I want to start my web development career now. Or at least as soon as possible. I can drop out and devote 6 months to teaching myself, but I want something more structured. Something that has the benefits of a classroom and an authority figure, but which teaches me exactly what I need to know to do what I want to do. Any suggestions?
You could probably drop and and instead pay for specific classes in web development technologies offered by any of a large number of organizations which specialize in offering classroom training in specific technologies. You'll probably be a minimally competent web developer using the specific technologies you train in faster than you would be if you continued with the CS degree with no specific focus on web development, OTOH, you'll probably spend money much faster on training than you are on getting a CS degree, and get less breadth for it -- you'll also have much less of a grounding in the fundamentals of programming and be less able to adapt to changes in the market for different kinds of development and different technologies for web development as if you had stuck out a CS degree, particularly if you are the kind of person for whom "something more structured" and "the benefits of a classroom and an authority figure" are important to your ability to learn.
Alternatively, if you know that you want to specialize in web development, you could stick with the CS degree and focus your class selection, within the range of options available to complete the degree, on those most applicable to web development. And you should do web-related projects (personal or for others) or seek out web development related internships alongside your schooling to apply what you are learning to the area you want to specialize in.
Good question, and I don't know what the best answer is. But a software developer named Mike Rowe was not allowed to have the domain mikerowesoft.com because microsoft thought it was too close to their name.
No, first because the issue wasn't bare "names" but Microsoft asserting its right to its trademark within the commercial domain (computer software) to which that trademark applies. Trademarks are names, but not all names are trademarks.
But more importantly, Microsoft didn't win the case, they reached an out of court settlement where they paid the high school student for the domain name with a combination of cash covering all of his expenses related to building the domain and a variety of other goods and services.
No, the main inputs are information and an information channel back for displaying ads (both are critically important to Google's ability to sell advertising -- the information is useless for selling ads without the advertising channel, and the channel has value even without the additional information, which is why less-targeted ads are still sold on the internet.)
You sell your (and your contacts) privacy to google for access to their services.
No, I don't sell privacy. I sell the right to use particular information in particular ways, all covered by the terms of the agreement for the service at issue. My privacy covers lots of information, in lots of places, most of which Google doesn't get access to by way of my use of Gmail, and uses which, even for the information they can make some use of under the relevant agreement, that are outside the scope of the rights Google acquires via our transaction.
If the email mentions a particular brand of shoes, Google may start advertising those to you when the contacts birthday approaches.
That's why this reeks of a marketing department coming up with this nonsense rather than anyone who actually understands the technology.
Its a PR campaign conceived and direct by political strategist Mark Penn, who is now Microsoft's "Corporate Vice President for Strategic and Special Projects".
GMail is a free service yet you are a product that is being sold to advertisers.
Wrong. I am the supplier of the inputs for the product that is being packaged by Google and sold to advertisers, and Gmail is (one of many parts of) the payment Google provides to me in return for providing those inputs.
If I am not satisfied that the payment is sufficient value for what Google is asking in exchange, I stop providing the inputs and reject the payment.
Freedom may wear a crown. Remember that constitutional monarchy failed in France, yet England's monarchy was/is very much like a constitutional monarchy(it's limited by many laws, yet there is no formal "constitution").
England's monarchy is pretty much the prototypical constitutional monarchy: the idea that a constitution ought to be a single written document was a later development after the concept of a constitutional monarchy was established.
Of course, you are confounding constitutional limitations on the monarchy with freedom; England's early constitutional monarchy was more about protecting the traditional prerogatives of elites outside of the monarchy from French-style absolute monarchy than about protecting freedom of the people generally.
Even though ultimately facebook is probably a bad choice for it, what else is so ubiquitous as to be a reasonable option that also doesnt suffer the same essential problems (certainly not a google account?)
OpenID. Sure, a provider having a similar error could stop users of that provider from logging on to your site, but its not a single point of failure for the entire site, its a single point of failure for the user and all the sites they use it to log into.
Forex is more manipulated than an abused child but millions still think they are going to outsmart all the central banks in the world and bet their retirements on it.
Yeah, but no one trusts it as a means of predicting future events. The thing prediction markets rely on reputation for is their perception as useful for prediction (which is also what manipulators hoping to manipulate election results through those markets rely on.) So, its a problem, if it actually exists, with a certain amount of built in control -- if the markets are seen to be manipulated, manipulating them will have less value.
Slashdot Mirror
By reducing lecturing costs you are freeing up more resources for those things. Assuming you can spend those additional resources with non-negative return, you can improve the other necessary components. This was, explicitly, addressed in GP; even in the paragraph you quoted.
If you can't do that, you just don't change the non-lecture bits at all, and get the same education quality at less cost.
Either way is a net win in value.
The problem is that the whole large-scale outsourcing of government IT to private service providers isn't some kind of bold new prediction. It is what government has done since IT existed.
Which, of course, is why one of the layers of bureaucracy that Newsome complains about in government exists -- that is, specifically, the layer of bureaucracy dedicated to overseeing IT contracts (of including yet another set of outsourced vendors doing oversight, that also have to be overseen.)
And, actually, in government its even worse, in that the firms actually doing the work are often subcontractors, where the primary contractor is a firm whose specialty is navigating the government contracting systems and winning government contracts.
Apropos of this, a number of MOOCs -- don't know if Khan is doing this as well -- are engaging in experimentatl partnerships with degree-granting institutions for hybrid courses where the MOOC is a central component of the combined course, but there is a live component and exams as well.
Actually, artillery and rocketry were among the earliest fields to have computers devoted to them, and getting to the moon used some of the most advanced computers then available.
Using classroom time for student project work with instructor in-person interaction without sacrificing lecture (by moving the lecture out of classroom time) does bring a benefit. Its probably a more significant benefit for secondary education than university education (though for many large university courses, it allows eliminating the cost of a large lecture hall for a mass, noninteractive lecture course and frees up the space for more productive use, while otherwise preserving the model of the course of a lecture where interaction is impossible + smaller discussion sections where lecture is practical.)
Well, yeah, the free option is less than ideal (though valuable); hybrid systems which use a MOOC-like online component for delivering lecture (some of these are actually now being built by integrating existing MOOCs, though non-massive online lecture components in the same role have been used for hybrid online/in-person teaching since the late 1990s, and IIRC there were some similar things done with television-based courses even earlier) with in-class projects with interaction with a live instructor are another model.
By reducing the per-student cost and increasing the convenience of the -- as you note, necessary -- lecture component of the teaching, you are increasing the resources available, all other things being equal, for all other necessary components. Thereby, improving education overall. Lecturing doesn't have to be sufficient on its own for increasing the efficiency of delivering the lecture component to be sufficient to enable overall improvements.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
No, "how to manage programming projects" isn't software engineering. "How to manage programming projects" is IT Project Management.
Software engineering is how to design software systems (particularly, large software systems). The CS:Software Engineering relationship is loosely analogous to the Physics : Aerospace Engineering relationship.
Pens, pencils, books, paper, whiteboards, blackboards, writing systems, and numerals are all technology, just as much as computers, digital projectors, the internet, video conferencing, etc. are. They might be older technology, and many of them were probably rejected by people invested in the educational techniques they were used to when they were first introduced. To reject "technology" as outside of the universe of effective teaching is, well, ludicrous
For computers and the internet, we're still in a fairly experimental stage of working out how to use them to improve education, though there has been some pretty good work done on some techniques.
Perhaps, but you've got one too many independent variables there to say anything meaningful about the value of technology. The question is whether all other things -- including general teaching skill and subject matter knowlesge -- being equal the appropriate use of modern technologies can improve teaching, not whether modern technology is a good alternative to teaching skill.
What makes a college system effective is, and has always been, effective use of all resources available for education, including whatever technology is available.
The ability to deliver lecture outside of the fixed time and space of classroom time, enabling the use of classroom time for more productive interaction.
Less than 3 sets of one of each at the prices cited by GP, which is a pretty low threshold for "lots".
This is actually the core of a pretty significant modern trend, "flip teaching" (or "inverted instruction", or a bunch of similar names), in which lecture is done through video (usually delivered online) outside of class time and class time is used for student work with direct instructor interaction, essentially reversing the in-class lecture, out-of-class "homework" model.
OTOH, if you've spent an entire professional career getting things down under the classical educational model, I can see why you'd be resistant to adopt new models over what you've made work well.
This is wildly inaccurate. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits anyone from using the army or air force for law enforcement purposes without specific legal (Constitutional or statutory) authorization (18 USC Sec. 1385: "Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "); since the Insurrection Act grants specific powers to the President in this regard (see 10 USC Sec. 331-336), the Posse Comitatus Act, viewed in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, limits the President less than anyone else, not more.
The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes without specific statutory authority.
There is also specific statutory authority providing specific protocols for military support to law enforcement, which are fairly broad when it comes to anything other than military troops actually directly making arrests or acting directly as armed enforcers.
Becoming a veterinarian requires graduate education; zoology is a pretty reasonable undergraduate degree to get before going to Vet school. So unless you are saying that getting a CS degree is one of many very good options for completing a necessary first step on the way to becoming a web developer (which, while it might be true, doesn't seem like what you are trying to say), this probably wasn't the analogy you were looking for.
You could probably drop and and instead pay for specific classes in web development technologies offered by any of a large number of organizations which specialize in offering classroom training in specific technologies. You'll probably be a minimally competent web developer using the specific technologies you train in faster than you would be if you continued with the CS degree with no specific focus on web development, OTOH, you'll probably spend money much faster on training than you are on getting a CS degree, and get less breadth for it -- you'll also have much less of a grounding in the fundamentals of programming and be less able to adapt to changes in the market for different kinds of development and different technologies for web development as if you had stuck out a CS degree, particularly if you are the kind of person for whom "something more structured" and "the benefits of a classroom and an authority figure" are important to your ability to learn.
Alternatively, if you know that you want to specialize in web development, you could stick with the CS degree and focus your class selection, within the range of options available to complete the degree, on those most applicable to web development. And you should do web-related projects (personal or for others) or seek out web development related internships alongside your schooling to apply what you are learning to the area you want to specialize in.
No, first because the issue wasn't bare "names" but Microsoft asserting its right to its trademark within the commercial domain (computer software) to which that trademark applies. Trademarks are names, but not all names are trademarks.
But more importantly, Microsoft didn't win the case, they reached an out of court settlement where they paid the high school student for the domain name with a combination of cash covering all of his expenses related to building the domain and a variety of other goods and services.
No, the main inputs are information and an information channel back for displaying ads (both are critically important to Google's ability to sell advertising -- the information is useless for selling ads without the advertising channel, and the channel has value even without the additional information, which is why less-targeted ads are still sold on the internet.)
No, I don't sell privacy. I sell the right to use particular information in particular ways, all covered by the terms of the agreement for the service at issue. My privacy covers lots of information, in lots of places, most of which Google doesn't get access to by way of my use of Gmail, and uses which, even for the information they can make some use of under the relevant agreement, that are outside the scope of the rights Google acquires via our transaction.
They might. So what?
There is a reason for that, and the reason is "Mark Penn".
Its a PR campaign conceived and direct by political strategist Mark Penn, who is now Microsoft's "Corporate Vice President for Strategic and Special Projects".
Wrong. I am the supplier of the inputs for the product that is being packaged by Google and sold to advertisers, and Gmail is (one of many parts of) the payment Google provides to me in return for providing those inputs.
If I am not satisfied that the payment is sufficient value for what Google is asking in exchange, I stop providing the inputs and reject the payment.
England's monarchy is pretty much the prototypical constitutional monarchy: the idea that a constitution ought to be a single written document was a later development after the concept of a constitutional monarchy was established. Of course, you are confounding constitutional limitations on the monarchy with freedom; England's early constitutional monarchy was more about protecting the traditional prerogatives of elites outside of the monarchy from French-style absolute monarchy than about protecting freedom of the people generally.
OpenID. Sure, a provider having a similar error could stop users of that provider from logging on to your site, but its not a single point of failure for the entire site, its a single point of failure for the user and all the sites they use it to log into.
Yeah, but no one trusts it as a means of predicting future events. The thing prediction markets rely on reputation for is their perception as useful for prediction (which is also what manipulators hoping to manipulate election results through those markets rely on.) So, its a problem, if it actually exists, with a certain amount of built in control -- if the markets are seen to be manipulated, manipulating them will have less value.