> Kay's appeal is largely his Millenialism, Kirby eats it up, and Arthur > cries bullshit. >
We're fighting different battles obviously (millenialism? -- which calendar?). > This article by a UCLA professor, which manages to express more > coherently than I some of the concerns I have tried to express on edu-sig. > > http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/academe.html In contrast, here's a posting by a prof at CalTech, exulting in this process whereby 11-15 "experts" (he being one of them) dictate to the State, and by extension the nation (mechanism already explained) what math curricula we must conform to. He's militantly anti-technology, even towards the namby pamby stuff served up by NCTM, which is mostly about TI calculators, not programming. http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=4979217&tstart=0 > BTW, I don't agree with everyting in it. But recognize a voice from > responsible academia within it. > > Art I read this, but it seemed mostly arguing against some straw man "technophile" who wants to destroy the university as we know it, and put professors out of business. When it comes to giving his own views, he accepts technology is indeed an agent of change, and universities will be affected (in some cases they'll be pioneers, original thinkers -- same with professors no?). So what's so groundbreaking about this thinking? Mostly he's trying to paint a shrill, cultish millenialist to focus professorial outrage. A common enemy. A rallying point. But how much reality is behind this stereotype? Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
