1. I think there is too much focus on the WWW and not enough on other
advanced technologies and/or distance learning tools.
I'm surprised that the ideas presented by Pete Donaldson, Chris
Kemmerer and Bill Mitchell (others?) have not found a more
prominant place in the report. They should. I think this
is a serious problem.
2. The focus on the WWW is too positive -- it should at least mention,
if not stress, the "dark side of the web". In this category I would
place:
a) it is distractive -- inherently unstable against going
off on tangents which destroy concentration;
b) hypertext is relatively unstructured -- links about, but
guides for which to follow, when and with what priority
do not. The "linearity" of ancient texts allows one
to follow logic more clearly. The best example I know
is the EVAT report itself in web vs. hardcopy forms.
c) it is very poorly catalogued -- try to use it like a
library!
d) the QUALITY of information is undependable, largely because
it is unedited and not secure.
I want to stress that at least some of these problems are not
going to be solved by the "next version of the Web".
3. I agree with Greg that it portrays more consensus than exists on
the committee. Because of this, the discussion often appears to lack
depth and fails to convey the complexity of the issues. Some
examples (from my perspective):
On the "Novel Properties of the Web" page -- I don't really believe
that the Web NECESSARILY "has features that will allow it to
succeed where others...have not".
Same page -- I don't see the advantages of the WWW over a "two-
minute telephone call", or the patient "response to e-mail". Though
I certainly agree with the other two examples.
On the "Long Range Models for MIT" page -- I don't think that the
changes in the "Role of the Educator" as outlined are very likely.
In general, I think we undervalue the HUMAN dimensions of the ed-
ucational process throughout the report.
Same page -- I don't think it is "entirely possible" that "future
...higher education will not resemble the ... model of today".
It is conceivable. It may be the direction in which a particular,
training oriented component develops, but the discussion doesn't
admit the complexity of the subject.
4. I also agree with Greg that the long range recommendations are
not compelling.
I still don't understand the distinctions among:
"extended warrantees", "technical assistance", "upgrades" and
"Educational Maintainance Organization". This recommendation
gets too much visibility with these three (nearly equivalent?)
versions. There could be more discussion of options with
alumns, like an "alumni/ae college". The potential market for
high school students could be discussed in more depth. The
second professional degree program (Crawley and Kemmerer) and
attempts to reach foreign markets should be mentioned.