Two decades . . . "The new system sucks."

I don't know about anyone else, but I find this sort of story encouraging. I'm not a techno-phobe, to put it mildly; I have many personal reasons to be grateful for computer technology.

However, given the widespread alienation or whatever the latest catchword is for the feeling that we're being dehumanized by machines, it's reassuring to know that we have one essentially invincible ally in the battle for human dignity: the incompetence of those who would turn us into numbers.

"I am human, and therefore nothing human is alien to me." And like everyone else, I'm harder to figure out than the University of Colorado's, or anyone else's IT mavens may think.

Few things change deeply; we're the same bozos on this bus we've always been, just some of the toys are different. In the 1960s, before total computerization, Indiana University's registration system was idiotic, with "first served" varying each semester, since nobody in the administration was capable of grasping the idea that the typical undergrad was first a freshman, then a sophomore, then a junior, and finally a senior. Sanity would have suggested that seniors, having less time left to satisfy requirements, would register first, then juniors, then sophomores, then freshman. Had this been maintained, it would have been fair and reasonable. It wasn't, and it wasn't.

It's nice to know things haven't gotten better. Our rulers' minions are as ineffectual as ever. Good.

While I respect tham and enjoy working with them, the folks who run the IT systems at universities are often disconnected from reality. The online world is NOW, not 24 hours from now. As a system chancellor once commented in Texas, "It doesn't take the brightest bubba on the back porch to figure that one out."

IT people are focused on security and not on the needs of their customers - faculty and students. Too often they build systems which are slow, don't respond quickly, and are nearly impossible to use. This is just an example of making assumptions and designs which aren't based in reality or customer needs. There is NO REASON that university systems can't be as quick and responsive to customer needs as commercial systems - we just don't insist that it happen.

But a slap upside the head every now and then nudges all of us closer to reality - and it sounds like they got a good one.

As one who is suffering with this new system, I can tell you it is a commercial system produced by Oracle. Our old in-house system that was run by ITS was much faster if antequated. Everytime we want the simplest change made (like calling "majors" "majors" and not "plans") Oracle says that will cost you. Everytime a problem crops up we have to go to Oracle. The problem is not univeristy IT, but the commerical vendors to which universities are increasingly turning instead of developing IT systems in house.

And another problem is the whole "first come, first served" philosophy. Is that really the best idea we can come up with? Shouldn't the students who need specific courses in order to make academic progress be the first to register for those particular courses, regardless of class status? Why does class status trump academic or programmatic need? If people would sit down and think of the most equitable (not easiest and simplest to defend) policy for whom gets to take what classes, enrollment would look much different.

Some of the glitches in getting students enrolled in needed classes are IT related, and some are deliberate administrative choices. When a relative was enrolled in the U Wisconsin system, and urgently needed specific classes to move forward with her major and graduate on time, the university deliberately set up far too few sections to be able to accommodate all of the students who needed those courses, and then had a chaotic mad rush for first come first serve enrollment. As a result, she did not get these classes, and experienced this nightmare for 3 or 4 semester with crucial courses for her major. When I intervened and created a major issue over it, I was told by their chancellor that because of budget problems, they did not have enough faculty to teach the needed sections (which I did not believe in view of the many other projects and expenditures at that time). And then he suggested that I lobby the legislators to increase the UW budget so that this kind of "unfortunate problem" would not have to continue. So the top level administrators were perfectly willing to totally shaft sincere and diligent students in good standing to make a political point for their own interests. So sometimes what appears to be a computer issue or an IT issue is really a political issue in disguise.