Digital technology may revolutionize higher education, reducing the extreme cost barriers and improve teaching across the board. But, can we overcome our initial resistance to this change?
I disagree with the assumptions made by the article. Particularly the apparent inevitability of moving with, rather than against industry disruptors. One example given was streaming services, I would assume in opposition to Network Cable.
Using this as an example however, what we see was that a previously sustainable model (all be it one with many flaws) was replaced by one which relied on unsustainable levels of investor capital, and led to the hollowing out of workers rights, as seen by last years actors and writers strikes in the US.
Disruption then is only as inevitable as capitalism itself, even if it is implemented under the guise of a "democratisation", because looking at further solutions in the article, employing a comments or rating like system, amazon was used as an example, seems poorly thought out in the extreme.
Assuming at this stage of the game, that all those who comment are both adequately informed, and good faith actors is hopelessly naïve. Because looking at the trends in digital spaces, we are yet to find any working models for open, and balanced discussions, with informed, non-partisan conclusions.
So considering one of the central conceits of the academe is that authority is based on argument, it seems a perverse betrayal to re-design for popularity, and market capture. The problems brought up in the article, socio-economic bias, and scarcity, are more easily solved by sound public policy, and government investment in the context of 1. De-emphasising the association with knowledge and market value, and 2. Understanding education and training as a whole of life investment.
Neither of these the private sector, or tech sector more particularly, have show themselves qualified to implement, or understand.
I disagree with the assumptions made by the article. Particularly the apparent inevitability of moving with, rather than against industry disruptors. One example given was streaming services, I would assume in opposition to Network Cable.
Using this as an example however, what we see was that a previously sustainable model (all be it one with many flaws) was replaced by one which relied on unsustainable levels of investor capital, and led to the hollowing out of workers rights, as seen by last years actors and writers strikes in the US.
Disruption then is only as inevitable as capitalism itself, even if it is implemented under the guise of a "democratisation", because looking at further solutions in the article, employing a comments or rating like system, amazon was used as an example, seems poorly thought out in the extreme.
Assuming at this stage of the game, that all those who comment are both adequately informed, and good faith actors is hopelessly naïve. Because looking at the trends in digital spaces, we are yet to find any working models for open, and balanced discussions, with informed, non-partisan conclusions.
So considering one of the central conceits of the academe is that authority is based on argument, it seems a perverse betrayal to re-design for popularity, and market capture. The problems brought up in the article, socio-economic bias, and scarcity, are more easily solved by sound public policy, and government investment in the context of 1. De-emphasising the association with knowledge and market value, and 2. Understanding education and training as a whole of life investment.
Neither of these the private sector, or tech sector more particularly, have show themselves qualified to implement, or understand.