COLLOQUY Responses
|
|
COLLOQUY Responses
|
 Most of the comments I've read here have been formed on the basis of opinion (i.e., Microsoft is an ugly ogre out to get us, or, Microsoft is a friendly giant who can help us as long as we don't get underfoot, or, Microsoft is ruining the educational system, etc.). The fact is that, like it or not, Microsoft is (for lack of a better phrase) 'the owner of the technical means of production'. Alternative OS's like Linux (as much as I like it and have been using it since '94), OS/2, etc., cannot handle the multitude of applications that are considered the 'norm' for the general educational edifice. For those who read Toffler, Drucker, et al., the change to a technically-based knowledge-resourced economy is at once both the present for business and the future for education. The Internet will see to this as its transforming affect tears down the walls of current global educational ideology. These are facts. Microsoft is the key player here, and a Luddite mentality will do nothing to change this fact. Credentialing is the real issue here, i.e., do we continue climbing up the ivory tower with post-post-doctoral programs or offer much shorter, more specialized programs, like Microsoft's MCSE? This would be a much more interesting debate, but market-demand has really already answered this question as well. Certification and employment have to be worked into any current educational philosophy.
|
IN THIS DEBATE: The question Background Responses Join the debate IN THIS SECTION: Colloquy Letters to the editor Write to us Help |
|||
|
||||
previous response