gj
e40-359a/MIT/Cambridge MA 02139
voice: (617) 253-3712
fax: (617) 258-8736
url: http://web.mit.edu/gjackson/www/
key: pgp@pgp.mit.edu
=======http://eddie.mit.edu:80/cevat/report/web.html
I don't think this is true: "The Web is the best present-day representative of
the various advanced technologies we are concerned with." The advanced
technologies we've talked about cluster in at least two groups:
those aimed at advanced visualization, in which category I include many
video-manipulation technologies in addition to those usually included, and
those aimed at transparent, simple, widespread network exchange of
information.
The Web's great advantage is that it does some of both, but it's hardly
"advanced" or "best".
Otherwise, I rather like this Web introduction (which doesn't mean I agree
with its pride of place, about which more below).
=======http://eddie.mit.edu:80/cevat/report/eduses.html
I don't think this is true either: "However, the Committee believes that
distance education is not now practical". Some Committee members clearly
believe this; others equally clearly believe the opposite. The "experiment"
recommendations later on are more consistent with a "we disagree" conclusion
than with a "not practical" conclusion.
=======http://eddie.mit.edu:80/cevat/report/mit.html
Okay, another one I don't think is especially true: "Our alumni/ae are very
loyal". Certainly some of them are, but if you compare the loyalty of our
alumni to those of our peer institutions, I don't think we come off especially
well. The alumni that are loyal are *very* loyal, but there's a very large
group we never hear from and who say, very publicly, that they'd never send
their children here.
The corollary special characteristic, which I believe gives rise to numerous
internal misperceptions, is MIT's extensive inbreeding. This leads us too
often to perceive that the world ends at MIT's boundaries, and that nothing
anywhere else can teach us anything. This often keeps us doing things we
shouldn't do, and keeps us from doing things we should do. One can discern
this, I believe, in some of EVAT's work.
Finally, I continue to believe that there's no empirical basis for this
judgment of Athena's role at MIT: "...although perhaps not so much into its
teaching program". Compared to what? What, besides a faculty member standing
at the front of a classroom with four walls, black hardwood chairs, and a
chalkboard is MORE woven into MIT's teaching program?
=======recommendations
The short-term and medium-term lists seem quite improved to me (and having
said that I now desperately hope that they're not the same as the ones I
objected to earlier). The long-term recommendations still don't sing to me,
but I'm not entirely sure what to do about that.
=======in sum
I guess my more general problems with the current draft are the same ones I've
had all along:
(1) the report is Web-centric, whereas advanced technologies for education
(and even current ones!) aren't.
(2) the report makes the Committee appear unified, as to both ends and means,
whereas I believe that the Committee remains sharply divided on both scores. I
don't happen to think there's anything wrong with disagreement and division
PROVIDED we can convey its educational, technological, and intellectual
content fairly to our readers -- in fact, I think our disagreements about
networks, the Web, distance education, live videoconferencing, central versus
departmental faciltiies and support, oversight, and so forth have been the
most interesting elements of our discussions, and I'm worried that we disserve
the Institute by eliding them in the final report.
And of course is was frightening that I was reader #161 of a document that was
announced all of an hour ago -- either the counter needs to be reset, or
there's been a security leak...