<div>
As a brief aside, those interested in debating the purpose(s) of education may be interested in <a href="http://purposed.org.uk">http://purposed.org.uk</a> (especially the #500words) campaign. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>Full disclosure: I'm one of the 'kickstarters' (it's a co-operative community interest company) </div>
<div><br>--- <br>Doug Belshaw<br>http://dougbelshaw.com<div><br></div><div>This email is:</div><div><br></div><div>[x] Bloggable</div><div>[ ] Ask first</div><div>[ ] Private</div><br></div>
<p style="color: #A0A0A8;">On Sunday, 11 September 2011 at 18:45, idc-request@mailman.thing.net wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<span><div><div>Send iDC mailing list submissions to<br> <a href="mailto:idc@mailman.thing.net">idc@mailman.thing.net</a><br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> <a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> <a href="mailto:idc-request@mailman.thing.net">idc-request@mailman.thing.net</a><br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> <a href="mailto:idc-owner@mailman.thing.net">idc-owner@mailman.thing.net</a><br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of iDC digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: The Aims of Education (Blake Stimson)<br> 2. Re: The Aims of Education (Stephen Downes)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 13:11:25 -0700<br>From: Blake Stimson <<a href="mailto:blakestimson@gmail.com">blakestimson@gmail.com</a>><br>Subject: Re: [iDC] The Aims of Education<br>To: <a href="mailto:idc@mailman.thing.net">idc@mailman.thing.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:A2F281F2-7EDD-412A-83A1-31391E39CDDD@gmail.com">A2F281F2-7EDD-412A-83A1-31391E39CDDD@gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1<br><br>Just a rudimentary observation here. Anya is certainly right that "the rich may feel comfortable supporting each other but not the middle class" and that this has played a leading role in the defunding of public higher education for the non-rich. However, in so far as this analysis is correct it is probably not appropriate or accurate to call this process "democracy," as she does. A better term might be "plutocracy." Calling the defunding of public higher ed plutocratic is a bit like calling "Obamacare" or the postal system or the highway system or public parks or Medicare or Social Security "socialistic," which, of course, is fair enough--these services are socialistic insofar as they are available to all. Public higher education, or at least a quality higher ed version of the sort we might associate with the Oxbridge model, might also be called socialistic or just democratic insofar as it can be thought of as creating the conditions of equal opportunity (as opposed to equal reward). The measure of such quality is its emphasis on substantive mentorship and the enduring bond that arises from the combination of the residential experience together with exposure to new ideas and more complex forms of understanding.<br><br>The DIY model means many things for higher ed, of course--democratization, consumerization, creativity, innovation, and proliferation in its programming, entrepreneurship in its business activities, and, in some models, an increasingly individualized and privatized understanding of education's value, while in others a more communitized and socialized understanding of that value. Structurally, however, we should not forget that it is like the voucher approach to public goods long advocated by neoliberal theorists such as Milton Friedman, and, since Reagan and Thatcher, long implemented in our social systems. In the context of the discussion on this list, it is important to recall that this consumer-knows-best approach has played a leading ideological role in the massive redistribution of wealth in the last thirty years by effectively transferring investment risk to those who can least afford it and transferring the economic safety net to the wealthiest. <br><br>Independent academic majors have existed in most colleges and universities since the 1960s . In some cases this DIY option works out very well, of course, but in many other cases not. An 18 or 20 or 22 year-old may know better what they need from their education than professors or curriculum committees or education accreditation bodies or academic professional associations or governmental departments of education. Often, however, they do not--they just think they do. This unwarrented confidence used to be labeled "sophomoric" and was thought of as a form of adolescent overreaching. The standard piece of advice was "the more you know the more you realize how little you know," advice meant to cultivate some humility and the wisdom that comes with it, hopefully without dampening youthful enthusiasm. Such guidance can itself become stilted, paternalistic, unresponsive, and corrupt, of course, but it is not necessarily so--sometimes it represents the wisdom of experience and the advantage of sophistication. A similar sense of wisdom and sophistication born of experience might be associated with the banking regulations and taxation policies developed in the 1930s and rolled back in the last 30 years.<br><br>As others have pointed out, the anti-institutionalism that was so socially meaningful and effective in the 1960s has become something quite different as it has migrated more and more into the anti-government, anti-taxation, anti-social programs, and anti-institutionalized-education platform of the increasingly radicalized and activist right. The DIY approach to education cuts as easily to this right as it does to the left in the world we find ourselves in today. The best names for the poles that define that left-right spectrum are "democracy" and "plutocracy"--that is, if we take democracy to stand for the horizon of equal opportunity and we take plutocracy to be its opposite. As educational policy theorists and advocates, which way we push the DIY concept may be the most significant part of anything that gets said in a forum like this one. We can, of course, simply accept the proposition that the only realistic expectation for the future is that the rich will use their power and influence to roll back the democratic gains made on behalf of the middle class in the 20th century, as Anya suggests. However, doing so would render our role as commentators on the purpose and value of higher education passive at best, or, at worst, make us ideological man and maidservants for those pillaging the resources of middle class social mobility. <br><br><br><br><br><br>On Sep 9, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Anya Kamenetz wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>The swiftness with which the UK is reverting to an American pattern of spending on higher education is frightening and destabilizing. Still, I have to point out that there's a logical relationship between the massification of higher education and the withdrawal of state support. It's not just about commodification. <br><br>When Oxbridge was for <5% of the population, no problem, it was free. When higher education is for 40-50% of the population, free is a far more expensive proposition.<br><br>Part of that is about the limits of solidarity in a democratic society--the rich may feel comfortable supporting each other but not the middle class. There's a telling example in my book where African-American and Latino students in the CUNY public college system in New York successfully organized for equal and open admissions policies in the early 1970s; just a year or two later, the state assembly voted to charge tuition at those schools for the first time.<br>-Anya<br><br>On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Simon Biggs <<a href="mailto:simon@littlepig.org.uk">simon@littlepig.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>The price of education is not stable in the USA and here in the UK it is rising radically. The UK government's decision to withdraw all tax payer funded support for public Higher Education teaching costs means that the fee students pay is rising from ?3000 to an average of ?8500 (in some institutions ?9000) per year. That is an increase in cost to the student and an increase in income to the institutions (the unit value of the student is increasing by around 20%). In Scotland, where education policy is a devolved matter, University remains free for Scottish and EU students. However, due to a legal anomaly, Scot's institutions can charge English, Welsh and Northern Irish students up to ?9000/year as well. Scottish degrees are four years whilst English are three. My own institution (Edinburgh) announced last week it will charge English students ?36,000 for a basic degree, making it by far the most expensive choice for an English candidate, some 20-25% more expensive than Cambridge or Oxford (Scotland's second ranked institution, St Andrews, is charging ?27,000 for the same degree). We will see how long the state of affairs can be sustained (political, legal or economic circumstances could cause further change in any direction) but these are eye watering increases in both costs to the student and income to the provider.<br><br>This is not about a rise in costs but a realignment of the relationship between tax payers and the state. It is an ideologically driven change, where a government thinks education is neither a public good or a right but a service to be purchased by a consumer. If they can offload the costs of HE then they can put resources into reducing the national debt, which is their stated current priority. We are protected from this in Scotland (politically) but, as Edinburgh's decision on fees shows, there are nevertheless extremely negative consequences. Nearly 50% of Edinburgh's 30,000 students are from south of the border. We will see what happens to the number post-2012, but my feeling is that the numbers will be sustained as the University is way over-subscribed. The effect this will have on the culture of the institution will be profound.<br><br>best<br><br>Simon<br><br><br>On 8 Sep 2011, at 21:05, Anya Kamenetz wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>Costs and prices are both rising. My comments referred to the reasons costs are rising. Jane Wellman of the Delta Cost Project has done the most detailed work as to why.<br></div></blockquote></blockquote><br><blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>the price of higher ed is actually pretty constant compared to other things that use secure 1st world labor. It got more expensive relative to things that became much, much cheaper because of lower labor costs and or substitution of tech for labor power.<br></div></blockquote></blockquote><br>Actually the price of higher ed has risen even relative to the price of health care, which is the closest related example of a service provided by secure first world labor. And yes, my whole point is that it is more expensive relative to other things people choose to spend their money on, and that this makes it both more commodified and less desirable. <br>As for the factors you mentioned: labor costs have been lowered in higher ed with the advent of adjuncts, but the savings have gone to the bottom line, not the student. <br>And the substitution of technology for labor power is one of the things that has been delayed but is happening and will happen in higher education because many people would prefer to pay less for a similar service. <br><br>The assertion that higher education is a "good investment for most degrees most of the time" varies by course of study, the quality and the cost of one's degree. It has been so in the past but may not continue to be so in the future. Whenever this point is raised I also feel compelled to mention that there are 41 million people in this country with a bachelor's degree, and 44 million people with some college and no degree. Most onetime college students have realized little to no return. <br>a<br><br>On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Philipp Schmidt <<a href="mailto:philipp@p2pu.org">philipp@p2pu.org</a>> wrote:<br>On 8 September 2011 13:50, Ken Wark <<a href="mailto:warkk@newschool.edu">warkk@newschool.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Anya: I'd want to be a bit more cautious about cost-of-education arguments.<br><br>Firstly, pricing in American higher ed is all about discounts. The gap between sticker price and discount has been getting wider, so sticker price isn't all that helpful as a measure.<br><br>In the second place, the price of higher ed is actually pretty constant compared to other things that use secure 1st world labor. It got more expensive relative to things that became much, much cheaper because of lower labor costs and or substitution of tech for labor power.<br><br>In the third place, it is mostly still a good long term investment. Things like culinary school are in some cases not a good investment, but for most degrees most of the time, it pays off.<br></div></blockquote><br>Could you share some reliable data supporting the second and third claim?<br><br>Most people argue the opposite -> price rising much faster than other<br>goods/services, and long term benefits at best questionable.<br><br>P<br><br><br>P<br><br><br><br>-- <br>New ebook! The Edupunks' Guide<br>Fast Company column Life In Beta<br>Tribune Media column The Savings Game<br>Book DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education <br>Blog <a href="http://DIYUbook.com">DIYUbook.com</a> <br>Twitter @Anya1anya<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></div></blockquote><br><br>Simon Biggs | simon@littlepig.org.uk | <a href="http://www.littlepig.org.uk">www.littlepig.org.uk</a><br><br><a href="mailto:s.biggs@ed.ac.uk">s.biggs@ed.ac.uk</a> | Edinburgh College of Art | University of Edinburgh<br><a href="http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle">www.eca.ac.uk/circle</a> | <a href="http://www.elmcip.net">www.elmcip.net</a> | <a href="http://www.movingtargets.co.uk">www.movingtargets.co.uk</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br><br><br><br>-- <br>New ebook! The Edupunks' Guide<br>Fast Company column Life In Beta<br>Tribune Media column The Savings Game<br>Book DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education <br>Blog <a href="http://DIYUbook.com">DIYUbook.com</a> <br>Twitter @Anya1anya<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></div></blockquote><br><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:03:12 -0300<br>From: Stephen Downes <<a href="mailto:stephen@downes.ca">stephen@downes.ca</a>><br>Subject: Re: [iDC] The Aims of Education<br>To: <a href="mailto:idc@mailman.thing.net">idc@mailman.thing.net</a><br>Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4E6CCDB0.4060606@downes.ca">4E6CCDB0.4060606@downes.ca</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>I think this is an important point: "The DIY approach to education cuts <br>as easily to this right as it does to the left in the world we find <br>ourselves in today."<br><br>Blake Stimson calls the alternative approaches 'democracy' (left) and <br>'plutocracy' (right) but these terms refer more to the governance of <br>education than to the aims and manifestations of it.<br><br> From my perspective, there is a determined effort from the (ostensible) <br>right to convert education into a form of consumerism. The objectives of <br>this consumerism will mirror the objectives of consumerism in general - <br>a dependence on providers, a mechanism for manufacturing belief and <br>opinion, and a means to channel wealth to the already wealthy.<br><br> From the perspective of the left, new models of learning (I don't want <br>to call them 'DIY' because the 'DIY' name and model are, to my mind, <br>pretty much in the consumerist camp) are founded more on the idea of <br>empowerment than consumption. At first blush, proponents of this <br>approach call on people to create their own educational opportunities <br>and resources, rather than to buy them, and to work cooperatively as a <br>community, rather than individually as customers.<br><br>We should not be fooled into believing, either (a) that higher education <br>will translate into mobility and social equity, and (b) that the purpose <br>of higher education institutions, to create and sustain networks of <br>influence of and among the wealthy, will change. A subtext of the right <br>(plutocracy) version of DIY is that attendance of traditional <br>universities will wane, 'correcting' the great democratization of the <br>institution, and restoring the power and privilege conferred uniquely on <br>attendees of Oxbridge, Harvard and Yale, and to a lesser extent, other <br>institutions.<br><br>The move toward DIY education is destructive if it is not accompanied by <br>additional mechanisms to restore or (in many cases) establish equity in <br>society. It is defensive if current attempts by the right to eliminate <br>the vast bulk of public education are successful. It is necessary in any <br>case for the empowerment of the people, but only if it takes a form that <br>supports, rather than undermines, that empowerment. And insofar as it is <br>the institutions, such as these universities, that preserve the current <br>inequity in society, it must also be anti-institutional.<br><br>-- Stephen<br><br><br><br>On 09/10/2011 5:11 PM, Blake Stimson wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Just a rudimentary observation here. Anya is certainly right that "the rich may feel comfortable supporting each other but not the middle class" and that this has played a leading role in the defunding of public higher education for the non-rich. However, in so far as this analysis is correct it is probably not appropriate or accurate to call this process "democracy," as she does. A better term might be "plutocracy." Calling the defunding of public higher ed plutocratic is a bit like calling "Obamacare" or the postal system or the highway system or public parks or Medicare or Social Security "socialistic," which, of course, is fair enough--these services are socialistic insofar as they are available to all. Public higher education, or at least a quality higher ed version of the sort we might associate with the Oxbridge model, might also be called socialistic or just democratic insofar as it can be thought of as creating the conditions of equal opportunity (as opposed to equal reward). The measure of such quality is its emphasis on substantive mentorship and the enduring bond that arises from the combination of the residential experience together with exposure to new ideas and more complex forms of understanding.<br><br>The DIY model means many things for higher ed, of course--democratization, consumerization, creativity, innovation, and proliferation in its programming, entrepreneurship in its business activities, and, in some models, an increasingly individualized and privatized understanding of education's value, while in others a more communitized and socialized understanding of that value. Structurally, however, we should not forget that it is like the voucher approach to public goods long advocated by neoliberal theorists such as Milton Friedman, and, since Reagan and Thatcher, long implemented in our social systems. In the context of the discussion on this list, it is important to recall that this consumer-knows-best approach has played a leading ideological role in the massive redistribution of wealth in the last thirty years by effectively transferring investment risk to those who can least afford it and transferring the economic safety net to the wealthiest.<br><br>Independent academic majors have existed in most colleges and universities since the 1960s . In some cases this DIY option works out very well, of course, but in many other cases not. An 18 or 20 or 22 year-old may know better what they need from their education than professors or curriculum committees or education accreditation bodies or academic professional associations or governmental departments of education. Often, however, they do not--they just think they do. This unwarrented confidence used to be labeled "sophomoric" and was thought of as a form of adolescent overreaching. The standard piece of advice was "the more you know the more you realize how little you know," advice meant to cultivate some humility and the wisdom that comes with it, hopefully without dampening youthful enthusiasm. Such guidance can itself become stilted, paternalistic, unresponsive, and corrupt, of course, but it is not necessarily so--sometimes it represents the wisdom of experience and the advantage of sophistication. A similar sense of wisdom and sophistication born of experience might be associated with the banking regulations and taxation policies developed in the 1930s and rolled back in the last 30 years.<br><br>As others have pointed out, the anti-institutionalism that was so socially meaningful and effective in the 1960s has become something quite different as it has migrated more and more into the anti-government, anti-taxation, anti-social programs, and anti-institutionalized-education platform of the increasingly radicalized and activist right. The DIY approach to education cuts as easily to this right as it does to the left in the world we find ourselves in today. The best names for the poles that define that left-right spectrum are "democracy" and "plutocracy"--that is, if we take democracy to stand for the horizon of equal opportunity and we take plutocracy to be its opposite. As educational policy theorists and advocates, which way we push the DIY concept may be the most significant part of anything that gets said in a forum like this one. We can, of course, simply accept the proposition that the only realistic expectation for the future is that the rich will use their power and influence to roll back the democratic gains made on behalf of the middle class in the 20th century, as Anya suggests. However, doing so would render our role as commentators on the purpose and value of higher education passive at best, or, at worst, make us ideological man and maidservants for those pillaging the resources of middle class social mobility.<br><br><br><br><br><br>On Sep 9, 2011, at 5:54 AM, Anya Kamenetz wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>The swiftness with which the UK is reverting to an American pattern of spending on higher education is frightening and destabilizing. Still, I have to point out that there's a logical relationship between the massification of higher education and the withdrawal of state support. It's not just about commodification.<br><br>When Oxbridge was for<5% of the population, no problem, it was free. When higher education is for 40-50% of the population, free is a far more expensive proposition.<br><br>Part of that is about the limits of solidarity in a democratic society--the rich may feel comfortable supporting each other but not the middle class. There's a telling example in my book where African-American and Latino students in the CUNY public college system in New York successfully organized for equal and open admissions policies in the early 1970s; just a year or two later, the state assembly voted to charge tuition at those schools for the first time.<br>-Anya<br><br>On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Simon Biggs<<a href="mailto:simon@littlepig.org.uk">simon@littlepig.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>The price of education is not stable in the USA and here in the UK it is rising radically. The UK government's decision to withdraw all tax payer funded support for public Higher Education teaching costs means that the fee students pay is rising from ?3000 to an average of ?8500 (in some institutions ?9000) per year. That is an increase in cost to the student and an increase in income to the institutions (the unit value of the student is increasing by around 20%). In Scotland, where education policy is a devolved matter, University remains free for Scottish and EU students. However, due to a legal anomaly, Scot's institutions can charge English, Welsh and Northern Irish students up to ?9000/year as well. Scottish degrees are four years whilst English are three. My own institution (Edinburgh) announced last week it will charge English students ?36,000 for a basic degree, making it by far the most expensive choice for an English candidate, some 20-25% more expensive than Cambridge or Oxford (Scotland's second ranked institution, St Andrews, is charging ?27,000 for the same degree). We will see how long the state of affairs can be sustained (political, legal or economic circumstances could cause further change in any direction) but these are eye watering increases in both costs to the student and income to the provider.<br><br>This is not about a rise in costs but a realignment of the relationship between tax payers and the state. It is an ideologically driven change, where a government thinks education is neither a public good or a right but a service to be purchased by a consumer. If they can offload the costs of HE then they can put resources into reducing the national debt, which is their stated current priority. We are protected from this in Scotland (politically) but, as Edinburgh's decision on fees shows, there are nevertheless extremely negative consequences. Nearly 50% of Edinburgh's 30,000 students are from south of the border. We will see what happens to the number post-2012, but my feeling is that the numbers will be sustained as the University is way over-subscribed. The effect this will have on the culture of the institution will be profound.<br><br>best<br><br>Simon<br><br><br>On 8 Sep 2011, at 21:05, Anya Kamenetz wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>Costs and prices are both rising. My comments referred to the reasons costs are rising. Jane Wellman of the Delta Cost Project has done the most detailed work as to why.<br>the price of higher ed is actually pretty constant compared to other things that use secure 1st world labor. It got more expensive relative to things that became much, much cheaper because of lower labor costs and or substitution of tech for labor power.<br></div></blockquote></blockquote>Actually the price of higher ed has risen even relative to the price of health care, which is the closest related example of a service provided by secure first world labor. And yes, my whole point is that it is more expensive relative to other things people choose to spend their money on, and that this makes it both more commodified and less desirable.<br>As for the factors you mentioned: labor costs have been lowered in higher ed with the advent of adjuncts, but the savings have gone to the bottom line, not the student.<br>And the substitution of technology for labor power is one of the things that has been delayed but is happening and will happen in higher education because many people would prefer to pay less for a similar service.<br><br>The assertion that higher education is a "good investment for most degrees most of the time" varies by course of study, the quality and the cost of one's degree. It has been so in the past but may not continue to be so in the future. Whenever this point is raised I also feel compelled to mention that there are 41 million people in this country with a bachelor's degree, and 44 million people with some college and no degree. Most onetime college students have realized little to no return.<br>a<br><br>On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Philipp Schmidt<<a href="mailto:philipp@p2pu.org">philipp@p2pu.org</a>> wrote:<br>On 8 September 2011 13:50, Ken Wark<<a href="mailto:warkk@newschool.edu">warkk@newschool.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Anya: I'd want to be a bit more cautious about cost-of-education arguments.<br><br>Firstly, pricing in American higher ed is all about discounts. The gap between sticker price and discount has been getting wider, so sticker price isn't all that helpful as a measure.<br><br>In the second place, the price of higher ed is actually pretty constant compared to other things that use secure 1st world labor. It got more expensive relative to things that became much, much cheaper because of lower labor costs and or substitution of tech for labor power.<br><br>In the third place, it is mostly still a good long term investment. Things like culinary school are in some cases not a good investment, but for most degrees most of the time, it pays off.<br></div></blockquote>Could you share some reliable data supporting the second and third claim?<br><br>Most people argue the opposite -> price rising much faster than other<br>goods/services, and long term benefits at best questionable.<br><br>P<br><br><br>P<br><br><br><br>-- <br>New ebook! The Edupunks' Guide<br>Fast Company column Life In Beta<br>Tribune Media column The Savings Game<br>Book DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education<br>Blog <a href="http://DIYUbook.com">DIYUbook.com</a><br>Twitter @Anya1anya<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></div></blockquote><br>Simon Biggs | simon@littlepig.org.uk | <a href="http://www.littlepig.org.uk">www.littlepig.org.uk</a><br><br><a href="mailto:s.biggs@ed.ac.uk">s.biggs@ed.ac.uk</a> | Edinburgh College of Art | University of Edinburgh<br><a href="http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle">www.eca.ac.uk/circle</a> | <a href="http://www.elmcip.net">www.elmcip.net</a> | <a href="http://www.movingtargets.co.uk">www.movingtargets.co.uk</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br><br><br><br>-- <br>New ebook! The Edupunks' Guide<br>Fast Company column Life In Beta<br>Tribune Media column The Savings Game<br>Book DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education<br>Blog <a href="http://DIYUbook.com">DIYUbook.com</a><br>Twitter @Anya1anya<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></div></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br><br>List Archive:<br><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br><br>iDC Photo Stream:<br><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br><br>RSS feed:<br><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br><br>iDC Chat on Facebook:<br><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br><br>Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br></div></blockquote><br><br>-- <br>Signature Stephen Downes<br>Research Officer, National Research Council Canada<br>100 rue des Aboiteaux, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada E1A 7R1<br>Website: <a href="http://www.downes.ca">http://www.downes.ca</a> ~ Email: <a href="mailto:stephen@downes.ca">stephen@downes.ca</a> <br><<a href="mailto:stephen@downes.ca">mailto:stephen@downes.ca</a>><br><br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20110911/29938e0c/attachment.htm">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20110911/29938e0c/attachment.htm</a> <br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>iDC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Institute for Distributed Creativity (iDC) <br>_______________________________________________<br><a href="http://www.distributedcreativity.org">www.distributedcreativity.org</a> <br>_______________________________________________<br>The research of the Institute for Distributed Creativity <br>(iDC) focuses on collaboration in media art, technology, <br>and theory with an emphasis on social contexts.<br>_______________________________________________<br><br><br>End of iDC Digest, Vol 79, Issue 30<br>***********************************<br></div></div></span>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>