Schuman on Online Education - Slate article

[marshwiggle]

I had that particularly in mind (I was present at the Brandenberger Tor on NYEve, Y2K....oouf! The noise and the jam-packed crowds, with the Reichstag nearby, were something...)

But I consider Soviet Communists to be exponents of the far right, not the left....they migrated so far away from Marx they crossed over the line at the top of the circle, as far as I'm concerned....

So....imagery and its interpretations are multivalent.

M.

Far Right and Far Left don't seem that different to me.  The Nazis were socialists, after all, and Marxists are invariably guilty of the sort of demonization of the Other that tends to be associated with the Far Right.  They're both convinced that a government that doesn't have to worry about accountability to the general public or humanitarian concerns can manage the world better than the general public can. 

Absolutely. Extremists on either end of the spectrum don't have to face the unpleasant reality that centrists do; namely that reality is complex and nuanced, and there are no perfect solutions. Far more rewarding to tell youself you're on the side of the angels and everyone who disagrees with you is evil.

[writingprof]

It's an old trick of the Left to dismiss any exhausted leftist revolutionary government as "conservative."  And I suppose it's true that exhausted leftist revolutionary governments want to conserve the political systems that they have built.  But they're still leftists, and the people who advocate against them--and for traditional liberal values like freedom of thought--are still conservatives.  Just like in this country. 

[Katrina Gulliver]

-and for traditional liberal values like freedom of thought--are still conservatives. 

I'm still mystified by how quickly the left abandoned "freedom of speech" as a principle.

[marshwiggle]

-and for traditional liberal values like freedom of thought--are still conservatives. 

I'm still mystified by how quickly the left abandoned "freedom of speech" as a principle.

As soon as they realized it could be "weaponized"; AKA used to express ideas they didn't agree with.

[apl68]

It's an old trick of the Left to dismiss any exhausted leftist revolutionary government as "conservative."  And I suppose it's true that exhausted leftist revolutionary governments want to conserve the political systems that they have built.  But they're still leftists, and the people who advocate against them--and for traditional liberal values like freedom of thought--are still conservatives.  Just like in this country.

It goes to show how meaningless descriptive terms like "liberal" and "conservative" become when they come to be used as political labels.  I mean, there's no reason why somebody can't be both "liberal"--characterized by generosity toward others--and "conservative"--inclined to to want to preserve what they value and avoid radical change.  Instead we have "liberal" applied to groups that show some very illiberal attitudes about some things, and "conservatives" who are actually radical libertarians.  And of course so many who consider themselves one or the other use the "opposite" term mainly as if it were a slur to be deployed against anybody they don't like.

But again, this is an awful wide thread drift.  Does nobody have anything else to say regarding Schuman's take on online education?

[writingprof]

But again, this is an awful wide thread drift.  Does nobody have anything else to say regarding Schuman's take on online education?

You're right, sorry. We've just been so flummoxed by Mamselle's (feigned, surely) ignorance of the Berlin Wall that it's been difficult to stay on-topic.

Schuman is bad!  Unless we're deciding that she's good today, in which case Schuman is good!

[kaysixteen]

Schuman is a gadfly, and she's just plain right that ol ed is just not as good as ftf brick-and-mortar ed, at least not as good as the latter ed *can be*, when done appropriately.  That said:

1) many brick-and-mortar schools which lack the $ and resources to offer programs that will attract the best students are emphatically NOT offering a great college ed, and some courses and even whole degree programs are pretty darn poor, probably no better than many ol diploma mills in  similar subject areas offer.
2) many students are not ready for college, and/or not really interested in taking advantage of the whole-orbed experience of a solid ftf college experience
3) sadly, mefears that many schools, even really decent/ good+ ones, having been forced to ol-ize themselves during the covid crisis, will, ahem, well, ah, decide to maintain lots of ol offerings that they would not otherwise have instituted at this time, perhaps not reverting to corresponding ftf offerings, and institutionalizing el cheapo online adjunctery.  I am not sure what to do about this, but if anything is to be done, it would have to be done asap, pdq, etc., before such changes do get institutionalized.  This would be esp true because so many parents and kids are ignorant of the realities of ed quality differences, etc., and are really only interested in getting a degree as quickly and cheaply as possible, so long as that degree is at least perceived to be the ticket to lucrative sustained middle class + employment.

[marshwiggle]

Schuman is a gadfly, and she's just plain right that ol ed is just not as good as ftf brick-and-mortar ed, at least not as good as the latter ed *can be*, when done appropriately.  That said:

1) many brick-and-mortar schools which lack the $ and resources to offer programs that will attract the best students are emphatically NOT offering a great college ed, and some courses and even whole degree programs are pretty darn poor, probably no better than many ol diploma mills in  similar subject areas offer.

You make a similar point in several threads, but I'll adress it here. You compare "online" to "good face-to-face". That's not the comparison that matters- compare good online to mediocre (or worse) face-to-face. That's where the big change is coming.

If even 1 percent of courses adapted for online becuase of covid work out well, then that provides a template for making decent online versions of all kinds of things.

Also, the online experience is great for introverts and students who want to study; i.e. good students. The face-to-face appeal of weekends getting stupid drunk and partying naked is greatest for a "different" type of student.

[Caracal]

Schuman is a gadfly, and she's just plain right that ol ed is just not as good as ftf brick-and-mortar ed, at least not as good as the latter ed *can be*, when done appropriately.  That said:

1) many brick-and-mortar schools which lack the $ and resources to offer programs that will attract the best students are emphatically NOT offering a great college ed, and some courses and even whole degree programs are pretty darn poor, probably no better than many ol diploma mills in  similar subject areas offer.

You make a similar point in several threads, but I'll adress it here. You compare "online" to "good face-to-face". That's not the comparison that matters- compare good online to mediocre (or worse) face-to-face. That's where the big change is coming.

If even 1 percent of courses adapted for online becuase of covid work out well, then that provides a template for making decent online versions of all kinds of things.

Also, the online experience is great for introverts and students who want to study; i.e. good students. The face-to-face appeal of weekends getting stupid drunk and partying naked is greatest for a "different" type of student.

There are so many weird assumptions here, that it is hard to know where to start. Actually here, lets just substitute random things for online classes and face to face classes.

"You make a similar point in several threads, but I'll adress it here. You compare "ferrets as pets" to "dogs". That's not the comparison that matters- compare good ferrets to mediocre (or worse) dogs. That's where the big change is coming.

If even 1 percent of ferrets work out well, then that provides a template for making decent ferret versions of all kinds of things we used use dogs for."

Also, the ferret experience is great for introverts and people who want to study; i.e. people. The face-to-face appeal of weekends getting stupid drunk and partying naked is greatest for a "different" type of student, dog people

I know I'm convinced.

[marshwiggle]

"You make a similar point in several threads, but I'll adress it here. You compare "ferrets as pets" to "dogs". That's not the comparison that matters- compare good ferrets to mediocre (or worse) dogs. That's where the big change is coming.

Up until a few months ago, almost no-one had a ferret for a pet. Now that everyone has had a ferret as a pet for a few months, if even 1% of the people who had ferrets as pets liked the experience, that will vastly increase the market for ferrets as pets. Before, people could be told that ferrets were smelly, wild, etc. and people would probably believe it. But now that everyone has experienced ferrets for real, any claims about "what ferrets are like" will be tempered by peoples' own experience.

That is a huge change from 6 months ago.

[Caracal]

"You make a similar point in several threads, but I'll adress it here. You compare "ferrets as pets" to "dogs". That's not the comparison that matters- compare good ferrets to mediocre (or worse) dogs. That's where the big change is coming.

Up until a few months ago, almost no-one had a ferret for a pet. Now that everyone has had a ferret as a pet for a few months, if even 1% of the people who had ferrets as pets liked the experience, that will vastly increase the market for ferrets as pets. Before, people could be told that ferrets were smelly, wild, etc. and people would probably believe it. But now that everyone has experienced ferrets for real, any claims about "what ferrets are like" will be tempered by peoples' own experience.

This isn't actually true. In 2017, about 30 percent of students at public and non-profit private colleges were taking at least some courses online(https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/11/07/new-data-online-enrollments-grow-and-share-overall-enrollment)


The point is that the claims could be made about anything and would be as equally free of any argument. Perhaps a nice, conscientious ferret would be a better pet for some people than a dog who eats their shoes and barks all the time. It doesn't follow that therefore many people could replace their dog with a ferret and be happier any more than it follows that if someone can have a more pleasant experience taking an online course, that is a valid argument for switching lots of courses online.

[Caracal]

Also, the online experience is great for students who want to spend their weeks getting stupid drunk and partying naked  i.e. bad students. The face-to-face appeal   is greatest for a "different" type of student who can manage to wake up before 3 and be at a specific place wearing clothes of some sort.

[Stockmann]

Cattle-class lectures (really, any with 50+ students) are probably no better, and in fact probably worse, f2f than online for the OK-to-excellent students. Lectures with 100+ students are obviously worse than just uploading a video of the lecture, again at least for the OK-to-excellent crowd. The bad students, because online flexibility requires a little more self-discipline than the rigid schedules of f2f, aren't going to get out much of either mode but in my opinion will get even less out of online. So for small classes, tutorials and labs, IMO everyone is better off f2f than online, but for huge lectures only the worse students are marginally better off f2f, and the best students are worse off. Of course, if the instructor just lectures to the camera live at class time and the video isn't available somehwere for later viewing, then everyone is worse off.

[ciao_yall]

Cattle-class lectures (really, any with 50+ students) are probably no better, and in fact probably worse, f2f than online for the OK-to-excellent students. Lectures with 100+ students are obviously worse than just uploading a video of the lecture, again at least for the OK-to-excellent crowd. The bad students, because online flexibility requires a little more self-discipline than the rigid schedules of f2f, aren't going to get out much of either mode but in my opinion will get even less out of online. So for small classes, tutorials and labs, IMO everyone is better off f2f than online, but for huge lectures only the worse students are marginally better off f2f, and the best students are worse off. Of course, if the instructor just lectures to the camera live at class time and the video isn't available somehwere for later viewing, then everyone is worse off.

I wasn't a great student, and got a lot out of lectures, ranging from 100-800 students my freshman year.

Listening to a real person is completely different energy than watching them on a YouTube. Why do people still go to live concerts and plays instead of watching TV?

And I met other students with whom I discussed the topics, formed study groups, clarified questions and otherwise helped my understanding.

[Caracal]

I wasn't a great student, and got a lot out of lectures, ranging from 100-800 students my freshman year.

Listening to a real person is completely different energy than watching them on a YouTube. Why do people still go to live concerts and plays instead of watching TV?

And I met other students with whom I discussed the topics, formed study groups, clarified questions and otherwise helped my understanding.

Indeed, I get tired of these evidence free assertions about "good students" and "bad students." There's no profile of a good student. I certainly would have struggled taking classes online. As someone with ADD, physical classes really helped me organize both my work schedule and my thoughts. Honestly, I realized that this was still true for me this semester as a teacher. It was very difficult for me to keep four different classes organized when I didn't have reserved times where things needed to get done by and where those classes could get my full attention.