I have been doing house-cleaning on my posts and writing these two days. Serendipitously I found the following mini-writing done in March 2009. During the era of digital revolution, the 2nd life, the 3rd, 4th and the rest of the multiple-dimensions have been taking over the physical world. Virtually, the universities seem - supposed to be dead?
Wondering the data might have changed? Checking around!
Wondering the data might have changed? Checking around!
Every new president's, chancellor's, and whoever in charge's dream job
- pleasantly stimulating the economy, creditable, and most importantly - so visible!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- pleasantly stimulating the economy, creditable, and most importantly - so visible!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who takes care of the "Culture Inc."? 032109
I would like to share a posting relating to an article that I read from another Ning-group. It was about why sustainable education is an enemy to the edu-capitalism or edu-imperialism, if we are not too far away from the ed-utopia?
The article originated from a student’s question posted on May 8, 2008 Chronicle titled "Invest in People, Not Buildings.” Here it goes:
“Everywhere I hear the sound of dump trucks. It’s my fourth year at the University of Virginia, and they haven’t stopped building since I got here. A new commerce school, a new theater. If UVA is any example of the state of public education in general, we need to evaluate our priorities before another brick gets bought.”
Later in October 3, 2008 Chronicle has another article about the 375-Billion Dollar Question: Why Does College Cost So Much? In the October 20, a faculty member Mr. Orr, put it in a tangible way in his article “Meditation on Building”-
“It is estimated that the construction, maintenance, and operation of buildings in the United States consumes close to 40 percent of the country’s raw materials and energy and is responsible for about 33 percent of our CO2 emissions, 25 percent of our wood use, and 16 percent of our water use. In 1990, 70 percent of the 2.5 million metric tons of non-fuel materials that moved through the economy were used in construction.”
Fine, these inquiries were from the typical "resourceful" 4-year universities. Though the size of a textbook in our 2-year colleges can never be comparable to that of an edu-building, to what extent the open textbook project is a potential omen to the "Culture Inc."?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note of today, May 28 (T), 2013
The key point is-
Even promoting an open-textbook idea in a very humble way could be precarious, for it might go against a symbiotic fluidity in the system. For example, the school bookstore generates profits which may benefit the educational budgetary planning.
On the other hand, things always seem impossible until they are done. Systematic/systemic change takes all piece-works together to get going.
Post again, no other implication other than the nice rhythm of this oldie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpxd3pZAVHI
I would like to share a posting relating to an article that I read from another Ning-group. It was about why sustainable education is an enemy to the edu-capitalism or edu-imperialism, if we are not too far away from the ed-utopia?
The article originated from a student’s question posted on May 8, 2008 Chronicle titled "Invest in People, Not Buildings.” Here it goes:
“Everywhere I hear the sound of dump trucks. It’s my fourth year at the University of Virginia, and they haven’t stopped building since I got here. A new commerce school, a new theater. If UVA is any example of the state of public education in general, we need to evaluate our priorities before another brick gets bought.”
Later in October 3, 2008 Chronicle has another article about the 375-Billion Dollar Question: Why Does College Cost So Much? In the October 20, a faculty member Mr. Orr, put it in a tangible way in his article “Meditation on Building”-
“It is estimated that the construction, maintenance, and operation of buildings in the United States consumes close to 40 percent of the country’s raw materials and energy and is responsible for about 33 percent of our CO2 emissions, 25 percent of our wood use, and 16 percent of our water use. In 1990, 70 percent of the 2.5 million metric tons of non-fuel materials that moved through the economy were used in construction.”
Fine, these inquiries were from the typical "resourceful" 4-year universities. Though the size of a textbook in our 2-year colleges can never be comparable to that of an edu-building, to what extent the open textbook project is a potential omen to the "Culture Inc."?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note of today, May 28 (T), 2013
The key point is-
Even promoting an open-textbook idea in a very humble way could be precarious, for it might go against a symbiotic fluidity in the system. For example, the school bookstore generates profits which may benefit the educational budgetary planning.
On the other hand, things always seem impossible until they are done. Systematic/systemic change takes all piece-works together to get going.
Post again, no other implication other than the nice rhythm of this oldie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpxd3pZAVHI