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.

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.

Emerging Technologies - Connecting or Isolating?

There are some interesting conversations happen around the world about the role of social media and how human behavior is changing alongside the emergence of the newest ways of communication.

Recently on the Colbert Report, Sherry Turkle talked about her recent book "Alone Together". The thesis of her book is summed up by a recent by Paul Harris in an article in The Guardian: "technology is threatening to dominate our lives and make us less human. Under the illusion of allowing us to communicate better, it is actually isolating us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality that is a poor imitation of the real world."

I think this is a fascinating hypothesis, worth conversation and further exploration. I seem to, by default, love the ease of communication and accessibility I have to friends around the world. When you have friends from Canada to England, Germany to Cambodia, and France to Honduras, it seems  somewhat miraculous to be able to email, call (with video), text, and instant message all of them for either free or very reasonable prices. Fifty years ago - heck, twenty five years ago - this kind of communication would have racked up a bill a mile long. But I take it for granted that I can instantly write an email to the child I sponsor in Honduras, then have a free video Skype call with my friend in Cambodia, and follow it up with sending a text for just a few cents to another friend in England.

Yet this access does make it difficult to keep up with everyone. I rarely sign into Skype these days, often because I find it more distracting that I can afford with work and school, or simply because I forget to. Emails that are easy to send sometimes take weeks for me to get around to finishing, and loiter in my drafts box for a while. There are so many ways to communicate these days, but I still have many days where I feel the lack of communication in my life. I still write hand-written letters every once in a while, simply because there is something incredibly special about sending and receiving "snail-mail".

But I'm not sure that we're being isolated because of this technology. I think it is a possible repercussion for some people, but I'm not sure it is a societal epidemic. The key point, though, that I take away from this book and the idea of "cyber-skepticism" is that it is good to be skeptical. Just because social patterns are forming does not mean those are necessarily positive steps forward. There is the cited story about the woman who left a Facebook suicide note, and her 1,048 "friends" on Facebook failed to take action to do something, or take it seriously. I think this is a tragic story where there was a disconnect between cyber-life and "real"-life, and should serve as a catalyst for self-examination as an internet society. At the end of the day, I think it isn't the technology we have to worry about - social media is only the tool, neutral without the people and actions behind it.

Keeping Our Troops Connected

A recent headline on Wired.com made me pause: "Tweet Away, Troops: Pentagon Won’t Ban Social Media".

There has actual been the serious possibility that the Pentagon would ban soldiers from using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook? It boggles my mind - many of the troops now are being more and more made up of digital natives. You might as well tell them they're banned from talking as tell them they can't use social media, especially to communicate with their friends and family. As Robert Mason et al. describe them, these youngest generation of adults have “grown up in a world surrounded by connectivity and digital tools. They are ‘net natives’ or ‘digital natives.’ These are people who have never known a world without the Internet, instant messaging, online games, and the possibility of persistent digital presence with networks of people.” You're not going to be able to tell we of this digital native generation that we can't have our Facebook or Twitter fix. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen. Social media is a force that is moving forward, not winding down.

** Edit Note: If you read the comments, Jordan makes some very good points that should be integrated into my little ramble here. I really agree with her when it comes down to the fact that sometimes take an entitlement approach to social media. Just because we behave a certain way doesn't mean we should. **

Apparently, the bright idea of banning came from military officials who feared that social media caused too much security hassle, and took up too much bandwidth. So to say again, in 2009 the military was "seriously considering" a complete ban. The reason that this is now back in the news is because come March of this year, the 2009 policy that "enshrined military access to social media" is expiring, which only came after a long battle.

Hopefully, there wont' be any more malarky about banning or limited access. Because frankly, if the military did do something like this, the country would probably have to implement a draft. And then there would be riots in the street... and on Twitter.

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.