The Knowledge Economy - Don't Kill the Education Budget

An article on the BBC News website yesterday was titled "Graduates - the new measure of power". The main take was from an education perspective, looking at the shift from raw resources as sources of power within nations to knowledge and intellectual resources. This is not a new topic - scholars have been exploring the shift to the "knowledge economy", but perhaps I've been abnormally exposed to the school of thought since I'm getting a degree in information. Nevertheless, it is a recognized fact that measuring the "power" of a nation must calculate the innovation, information, and knowledge that is being generated within its borders and its citizens. This article emphasized the role that formal educational institutions play in this generation of value, and how all across the globe governments are heavily investing in their future through students and schools.

Maybe the numerous states in the US, such as Washington, should consider this fact before they continue to viciously slash at the state-supported education budget for schools such as the University of Washington.  As the Governor's new budget presents a worst-case scenario of an additional 40% slash, it is important to understand what has come already (from a letter to the State legislative from Interim President Phyllis Wise).


The steepest decline in state funding for the UW came in 2009-2011, when the state and the nation entered the Great Recession.  Over a two-year period, the University of Washington lost over $132 million in state funding, roughly 30% of its state appropriation.  Even with two 14% tuition increases, over $57 million in cuts were still necessary to balance our core education budget. 


Major cuts included: 
• Eliminated 950 jobs 
• Froze enrollment for resident undergraduates 
• Closed/eliminated 12 degree programs; 14 MA programs now self-sustaining 
• Increased advisor load by 180 students per advisor 
• Closed 384 undergraduate lecture sections and 130 small group sections 
• Decreased number of lab sections by 20%, while average lab size increased 38% 
• Closed 4 writing/tutoring centers and 2 computer labs (loss of 1/3 student workstations) 
• Closed 1 library, reduced library hours, and canceled subscriptions to over 1,200 journals 
• Reduced hundreds of hours of student counseling services (advising, financial aid, health)  


As I'm preparing to graduate in June from a program that is not state-supported at all, I'm still concerned as a citizen of Washington about the future of education systems if these huge cuts are continued. Economies recover, but it is likely going to take years and years for educational institutions to recover from the hemorrhaging of funds out of their budgets. It seems awfully short-sighted for any government to pull money from the one resource that is almost guaranteed to reward the economy handsomely in the future.

Creativity, Law, and Change

I recently listned to a well-articulated TEDTalk by Larry Lessig on "Laws that Choke Creativity". A really interesting and thought-provoking piece about how the changes in culture are leading to creative conflicts in the newest generations.

"We made mixed tapes; they remix music. We watched TV; they make TV. It is technology that has made them different, and as we see what this technology can do we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces; we can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it; we can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again; we can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good? We live in this weird time, it's kind of age of prohibitions, where in many areas of our life, we live life constantly against the law. Ordinary people live life against the law, and that's what I -- we -- are doing to our kids. They live life knowing they live it against the law. That realization is extraordinarily corrosive, extraordinarily corrupting. And in a democracy we ought to be able to do better."

I thought this was one of the best summaries of one of the biggest social difficulties of the times - the shifting notions of right and wrong, and what kind of impact that has on us as a culture. I think I have some more thoughts on this, but for now I have to get back to writing a paper on the concept and ethics of a national "smartcard" ID. A fascinating topic that has led me down many tangents (such as this video) though most of the diverging hasn't been useful for the paper. Oh well. At least the tangents are interesting and educational.

Anonymity, Privacy and The Debate on National Online IDs

I think the National Internet ID conversation that has been recently taking place is quite an important and interesting piece to be discussed. I've been approaching a research piece on it from a risk-perspective, but part of that is a risk to privacy and anonymity. In an article by Helen Nissenbaum on anonymity, I thought she had a good point - that anonymity is really about being "out of reach" from consequences. Anonymity can be abused and used as a negative thing (think criminal activities) but many times it is critical for certain systems to work (as mentioned, voting and peer-review).

In the draft of the "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" released in June 2010, their vision of the future sounds pretty good. "Individuals and organizations utilize secure, efficient, easy to use and interoperable identity solutions to access online services in a manner that promotes confidence, privacy, choice, and innovation." (pg. 12) Some interpret the strategy to mean that Americans could begin to have unique online identities used to access password-protected websites. That's an interesting and slightly worrying thought. While "confidence, privacy, choice and innovation" sound good, what does that mean in a practical sense?

Would having some sort of online identification be a threat to anonymity and a violation of privacy? Already there is so little privacy on the internet - maybe if the government regulates more, there would be less abuse of breaches in privacy and security. But I am a bit leery of the idea of allowing a government to so in-depth access or observation to the behavior of citizens. Nothing sounds so tyrannical as being observed at every moment or having to curtail one's speech for fear of reprival. And I'm not sure that an Online ID would be the most conducive tool for an open and free democratic society. But on the other hand, I like parts of the idea in theory - but things look so good on paper sometimes when in reality they just are a really bad idea.

Changing the World With Design

Since starting my graduate degree in Information Management, I've discovered an entire new and fantastical world called "design" that has entirely changed the way I think and view the world. The principles that make up the foundation of "user-centered design" can also serve not only to design better systems and stuff, but provide a framework through which to view the world.

One of the cooler applications of design to "everyday" life is the work that is being done by Emily Pilloton in North Carolina. Co-founder of ProjectH, a nonprofit design organization, Pilloton has taken on one of the scarier systems ever formed in the US - formal education - and has begun to tackle it with design.

Thinking about how to "fix" our underfunded, outdated, bureaucracy-laden public education system is a difficult, convoluted and systemically heartbreaking effort. But Pilloton has armed herself, and works to create "Design initiatives for Humanity, Habitats, Health, and Happiness". And it's working. They are doing some really awesome things over in North Caroline.

Check out her TED talk on "Teaching Design for Change". It is one of the most inspiring TED talks I've seen in a while. Often the people who speak for TED have these wonderful insights, challenges, and ideas, but this one is particularly strong because this a snapshot into work that is creating sustainable change in behavior and attitudes. And that's just cool.

More About Emily Pilloton:

A visit with Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report (1/18/2010)

Writing for Design Mind about the need for design to "Get Local", a reflection around the one-year mark of their project in Bertie, NC.

The End of Google Wave

A recent article by Maggie Shiels, a Technology reporter for the BBC News, proclaimed the news that "Google drops Wave because of lack of users". Reading through this, it seems a little strange to me. But it seems as if that because "Wave has not seen the adoption we would have liked", says Google, they are going to phase out the site and integrate some of the developed technology into other Google projects.

Honestly, giving up on Wave seems premature to me. I have been able to use Wave for a few different classes, both for note taking and project managing, and it has been a very interesting tool. Yes, I agree with the assessment that for it to be successful, many people need to be signed up and using it. I think pushing it within both corporate and education environments should have really taken it off. Wave has this awesome real-time communication and collaboration aspect, and it does it all within a browser. It has character-by-character live typing, and the ability to drag-and-drop files from the desktop, even “playback” the history of changes that users have made. It integrated other forms of communication and I'm really disappointed that Google is giving up on it. Perhaps it is because users required invitations, but that doesn't seem to be the case - I still have a good number of invitations that are sitting unused in my account.

I think this is indicative of the core problem with many information technology initiatives. This great technology exists, but people lack either the incentive or knowledge for how to use it to its fullest potential. So I don't think that the retirement of Wave is a technology failure, but an information one. If Google is going to "create innovations with the potential to advance technology" they're going to have to innovate better user communication and education along the way.

***

On a side note, I've been thinking about something recently. I don't read the news as much as I'd like to these days. During my undergraduate studies, I read the New York Times every morning, took the copy with me throughout the day because I would likely reference it at least once either in a class or in conversation. For the most part I focused on political and international news, and "digested" almost all the news articles through that lens.

Today, the way I get news it quite a bit different. I skim the international BBC headlines online when I get into work, briefly scan through my Twitter feed for local and technical news, and during my lunch break I'll dive deeper into a handful of stories that catch my eye. These articles are almost always technology or information related, which makes sense considering my program. Seems to be the story of grad school so far - all this information I want to process and not enough time to do it.