Blurts

The Associated Press has put together a great resource on conspiracy theories. The resource covers examples and analysis for researchers. This would seem a great starting point for educators. The resources strives to be politically neutral and includes a historical perspective.

Perhaps you saw parts of the grilling of some tech executives as part of committee hearings related to Big Tech and the Online Child Sexual Exploitation Act. The committee had arranged to have parents of children who had committed suicide in the audience and kept asking the tech executives to apologize and address these parents. It was difficult and I suppose made for great political television. I admit to having some sympathy for the executives put in this situation.

My reaction to these issues is to ask myself what I think would be necessary to make the situation better. I see the present situation as the equivalent of the politicians yelling at the big tech people claiming this is your fault so fix it. I keep thinking if in their place I would respond by asking just what is it you would propose we should change.

With this situation and the anti Section 230 politicians, the tech companies that essentially provide an opportunity for bad actors to act are the target. The problem with tech more generally is the same tools for accomplishing great things can be used by bad actors to do terrible things. There is no simple way to go after the bad actors so politicians go after the tech companies. It seems to me one solution would be to require the users of online technologies to establish their identities. I understand this would be challenging, but we seem to have figured it out when it comes to driver’s licenses and passports. Without anonymity, it would seem possible to go after bad actors. I understand there would be an issue here with equity and some users have very legitimate reasons for being anonymous, but this is a choice that could be made.

My point is that this is concrete and politicians could make this a requirement. Why not? Again, based on this example, Section 230 argues against such requirements because such expectations could probably be addressed by big tech, but would not be possible to implement by any of the rest of us with an online presence (even a blog) that could allow public comment. Competition with big tech would be eliminated.

I do think it essential to address big tech, but I have a much wider set of concerns. The limited options are the type of issue I think politicians should address as a root issue. Capitalism assumes things improve when individuals can move to an alternative providing the circumstances they desire. There are few options and the lack of interoperability between services limits choice.

If you are interested in this issue, I would recommend a recent post from danah boyd (I forget why she does not use capital letters). boyd has researched and written about adolescents and technology for years. Her analysis takes a broader view and while recognizing a role for online technology proposes that adolescents and the rest of us live in a messed up and toxic culture such that addressing tech alone will result in little change.

This is a recent Swisher podcast and is relevant to the discussion of power of big tech. Fei Fei Li is a prominent AI researcher. One of the more interesting issues from this discussion was Li’s effort to describe how the big companies had a position of control over AI relative to the role often played by higher education. The investment required to explore AI seems far too great for even the most well-funded institutions to take on. This situation has eliminated the more careful and nuanced role higher education can play in evaluating ethical and human issues. The focus in big tech corporations quickly focuses on profit opportunities. Li proposed that government assist multiple institutions in developing a consortium to pursue a wider range of research and evaluative topics.

I am concerned that political pressures and market forces are narrowing the goals of colleges and universities, steering these institutions towards an approach focused predominantly on job preparation. However, is this focus on career readiness truly the sole purpose of higher education, or is there more that we should demand from our academic journeys?

Colleges and universities have traditionally been bastions of learning, not just in the professional sense, but in a way that prepares us for the diverse challenges of life. This includes fostering critical thinking, nurturing an understanding of societal inequities, and equipping us to be responsible citizens in an ever-evolving global society.

This post delves into this complex and multifaceted issue, exploring the essential roles that colleges and universities should play in shaping not just our careers, but our characters, our communities, and our perspectives on the world. We must ask ourselves: are we expecting an education that truly prepares us for the many challenges of life, or are we being funneled into a narrow focus on occupational readiness, at the expense of a richer, more comprehensive educational experience?

The perceptions surrounding the priorities of higher education are influenced by a confluence of factors, each contributing to the growing skepticism about the role and value of colleges and universities. A major concern fueling this debate is the issue of high college debt. As tuition fees soar, students and their families are increasingly questioning the return on investment of a college education. The burden of this debt often lingers for years post-graduation, leading many to wonder if the education provided is worth the financial strain. Coupled with this is the rising cost of textbooks and other educational resources, adding to the financial pressures faced by students. These economic factors inevitably color public perception, turning the spotlight onto the immediate employability and earning potential of graduates rather than the broader educational objectives.

Additionally, there’s a growing sentiment that graduates are not adequately prepared for the job market. Employers often cite a skills gap, pointing to a mismatch between what students learn in college and the practical skills required in the workplace. This perception challenges the effectiveness of higher education in fulfilling its most basic objective: preparing students for employment. Compounding these concerns are claims of political bias within educational institutions. Critics argue that educators often impart a particular political ideology, influencing students’ perspectives and potentially detracting from a more balanced and objective educational experience. This criticism often leads to questions about the neutrality and overall purpose of higher education.

Moreover, the relevance of certain areas of study is increasingly under scrutiny. Critics argue that many academic disciplines, especially within the liberal arts and humanities, do not directly prepare students for specific job roles, leading to questions about their practical value in an employment-centric society. This viewpoint underscores a fundamental shift in expectations, where the measure of an education’s worth is increasingly seen through the lens of immediate job readiness and less through the development of a well-rounded, critically thinking individual. These complex factors together fuel the debate over the priorities of higher education, questioning whether its goals should be broad and holistic or narrow and occupation-focused.

The legitimacy of claims regarding the priorities and challenges of higher education is a multifaceted issue, requiring a nuanced understanding of the economic, social, and ideological dimensions at play.

Firstly, the question of whether college costs are unreasonably high is not straightforward. On one hand, the rising cost of higher education is undeniable, with tuition fees increasing significantly over the past few decades. However, this increase is not solely due to the institutions’ drive for profit. Higher education has evolved to encompass far more than classroom and laboratory experiences. Today’s students often have high expectations for their college experience, which extend to campus amenities like advanced living and dining options, state-of-the-art health clubs, and vibrant entertainment and athletic programs. These amenities, while enhancing the student experience, come with substantial costs. Universities find themselves in a competitive market where such facilities can be crucial in attracting students and their tuition dollars. This necessitates a delicate balance for administrators between providing an enriching campus life and managing the escalating costs associated with these extras.

Regarding the support for public institutions, the role of state funding is critical. Public universities rely heavily on state appropriations, but in recent years, many states have reduced their financial support for higher education. This reduction has shifted a greater portion of the cost to students and their families, contributing to the rise in student debt. The irony here is that the politicians who often criticize the high cost of college and the resulting student debt are also in control of state budgets that could alleviate some of these financial burdens. This creates a complex dynamic where the very bodies questioning the cost of higher education are also responsible for funding decisions that impact these costs.

The issue of liberal bias in higher education is another intricate matter. It’s true that certain fields of study, such as education, social work, and psychology, might naturally align more with liberal perspectives due to the nature of their subject matter, which often focuses on social improvement and human welfare. Furthermore, those who choose careers in academia might be more inclined towards liberal values, influencing the ideological leaning of these fields. However, this does not necessarily equate to a systemic bias across all of higher education. Universities traditionally encourage diverse viewpoints and critical thinking, and many institutions make concerted efforts to ensure a broad range of perspectives is represented in their curricula and faculty. Nevertheless, the perception of liberal bias persists, partly due to the broader societal and political polarization, and it remains a contentious issue in discussions about the role and nature of higher education.

In conclusion, the claims about the priorities and challenges of higher education are complex and cannot be easily categorized as entirely legitimate or unfounded. They are influenced by a range of factors, including economic pressures, societal expectations, competitive market dynamics, state funding policies, and ideological leanings. These factors interplay in intricate ways, shaping the landscape of higher education and the ongoing debates about its purpose and value in modern society.

In summary, the legitimacy of the claims about the priorities and challenges of higher education cannot be easily resolved. They are influenced by economic factors, societal expectations, state funding policies, and ideological leanings. These elements intertwine, shaping the evolving landscape of higher education and the ongoing debate about its purpose in contemporary society. Unlike other posts I write, much of what appears here is a matter of impressions and personal values that you may or may not hold. Part of my reaction is based on an impression that we are in a time when education at all levels is held responsible for much that has not historically been the case and institutions become an easy target for politicians who know that state and federal sources fund most educational institutions.

Larry Cuban, a writer frequently addressing historical issues in education, recently addressed the multiple recurring controversies in education and wondered without resolution why these battles (e.g., the recent National political interest in how reading is taught in the elementary grades) continue generation after generation. 

His post focuses on two main questions:

  What content and skills should be taught to U.S. children and youth?

  How should both be taught?

Cuban makes an interesting observation that matches my experience.  

 “ …few teachers get involved in these “wars” or teach lessons clearly on one side or the other of the issue once they close their classroom doors.” 

Cuban notes that in the early 1950s, policy elites including federal and state officials began to “educationalize” national social, economic, and political problems. This meant they expected schools to solve these problems, giving them more control over curricular policy. These expectations are examined and reexamined on cable television political channels. Criticism is what educators hear and the result has been many educators leaving the field and fewer college students looking at education as a career. 

Cuban’s observations reminded me of a claim I heard about the attitude people have about K-12 education. Parents are quick to complain about education, but much less so about the schools their kids attend and their students’ teachers. There seems a vague need to complain but the experiences of parents make it difficult for them to have a specific target. Some complain about the books in the library, but that seems the extent of the specific changes they can vocalize. 

Note: I have resorted to using AI to generate supporting images for some of my posts.

I have discovered the solution to a problem that has baffled me and others probably found to be no challenge. I often encounter references to news articles that appear to interest me, but when I try to read the articles I find they are behind a paywall. I understand the issue of online content needing to support content creators and services so I have no real issue with this situation beyond wishing there was a reasonable micropayment system that could be applied. Anyway, I subscribe to the NYTimes and the local online paper, but find myself interested in articles appearing in the Wall Street Journal, New Yorker, Atlantic and many other news outlets.

We purchased an Apple News+ subscription as a way to expand to many (Washington Post not included) of the outlets that interest me. The problem I encounter is finding articles I want in any but the most current issue. Often, what I have is a title and not the citation providing publication date and page number.

The obvious solution is a search feature which I make use of on my desktop machine, but I was baffled by where the search box was when trying to track down an article from my phone. I finally figured out the issue and will demonstrate both the problem and solution here for anyone interested.

The following is the display I see when connecting to Apple News+. No icon that says search. The solution is to select Following. I fear I have become very literal in my old age because I needed to see a search icon or a search box.

If you select Following, you are taken to a display that contains the sources you frequently consult and at the top of the page a search box.

Perhaps this was obvious to everyone else, but I was confused for some time. Whether this information is helpful or not, I do recommend Apple News+ as a solution to the “I can’t subscribe to every news source I might use once a month” problem.