School systems and colleges love these online services because they do most of the legwork (grading and grade management) completely automatically, which allows the instructor to have much larger section sizes (without having to hire grading staff). Pearson, the leading provider of these, likes to market them as better for teaching but everyone in education understands that what they're actually better for is bottom-…
Don't worry about making Pearson sound vaguely evil. The level of hate for Pearson, Wiley, and the like on my campus would make Hitler blush. I do not use the word "hate" lightly. It is a strong word.
I relied on my public library for internet access for years ... luckily though, I had my own computer. Do any libraries have some kind of persisted 'virtualized' environment that migrated between public-use machines? For example, at the library I was at, you could not install software you needed - things were pretty locked down. And one day you may use machine #5, another day it might be machine #10. Imagine you want…
I don't recall the details, but the last time I was at the main library in Cleveland, there was a sticker advising everyone how to save to a "cloud drive" so all their files would be there the next time they came back. They had some sort of similar system for the tablets they let you use as well, pretty nifty.
They have to be, as a condition of their journal subscriptions. Librarians generally want to extend access as far as possible, but they are terrified of pissing off a publisher and getting a journal taken away from their entire university's community of researchers who need it to do their work.
If the universities really cared about open access, they could unionize against the publishers. Imagine the top 20 schools, which also happen to be the ones producing the research, refused to abide by the publisher rules. Would they all have their access revoked? It's never made sense to me why, despite billions of dollars budgeted toward scientific funding, private companies make money charging for journal access. W…
"really cared about open access" doesn't mean caring about it above everything else, especially above their primary mission of doing research, which requires ability to publish in every particular research niche community globally (for every research area, the "top 20 schools" are different 20 schools, with only minor overlap), and the ability to read all this communication. Boycotts have been discussed and haven't succeeded because they directly harm researcher short-term interests; a slow migration is in process with some research communities switching to e.g. arxiv or other open access resources, but until all or most research areas worldwide have done so, every university still needs these subscriptions. Open access is desired, but having the subscriptions (and taking part of the publications) is mandatory.
If the universities really cared about open access, they could unionize against the publishers. Imagine the top 20 schools, which also happen to be the ones producing the research, refused to abide by the publisher rules. Would they all have their access revoked? It's never made sense to me why, despite billions of dollars budgeted toward scientific funding, private companies make money charging for journal access. W…
> If the universities really cared about open access, they could unionize against the publishers. If universities really , really cared, they could band together and set up their own journal publishing organization (many universities do have their own academic publishing arms, but a single-university journal publisher probably would be harder to establish respect for than one sponsored by a broad coalition of major u…
It's not enough to set up new journals. Until you convince everyone who matters (in your area of research) to use only the new journals, you still need the subscriptions to all the old journals as well, until (if!) they are abandoned and lose all status.
> They’re there during the school year, too, even during the winter — it’s the only way they can complete their online math homework. Why is there homework online? Has this been shown to be better in any way for children learning math or just a cop out by lazy teachers to be able to automatically grade the assignments? I can't imagine learning math with anything besides a pencil and paper (yes even calculators are mo…
A math course without a computer is not a modern math course. Humans are not going to advance the field, or even keep up to date, when it is insisted that students do everything their equally intelligent predecessors did plus new things. Something has got to go, and top of my list is a vast amount of pen and paper bullshit.
I'm assuming you don't have experience with this sort of computer integration. It's just using web portals to give problems with varied values (so students don't all have the same answers) and grading. It changes little about the problems, except in that the websites can be extremely frustrating when the right answer is 0.2 and 1/5 is wrong (without asking for a decimal.) You're still solving manually, but the grading is automated.
I also tend to think you should know the underlying math before you apply it on a computer. It seems like you're just learning which buttons to click on the program without that underlying comprehension. I can't imagine trying to understand calculus without being grounded in algebra first.
Then again, maybe what I've described is just a learning weakness in me.
A group of volunteers in Detroit are the pioneers in setting up mesh networks to provide connectivity to the poor. The recipe is to get some benefactors to sponsor one or two fiber connections, campaign with local businesses to open their connectivity and build a mesh network throughout the neighborhood.
I've met these people and have come away impressed and a little in awe of what they've done on - little or no money. They've also got some mean technical chops and have setup networks in other cities around the world like Brooklyn, Washington D.C. and India.
I could be wrong but I think it's actually lower in the US if you're only making minimum wage. Years ago it qualified you for a subsidized $19.99 plan. UPDATE It seems to be even less today at $5-10: http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/22/technology/access-from-att-d... It's strange that the article doesn't mention this.
Uh, yeah about that.. I have an aunt on permanent disability. She haggled with AT & T in Austin for months trying to get that service. They make it extremely difficult to actually sign up. I believe she finally just switched to the $300 one time cost Google Fiber plan when they came to town.
Why am I not surprised? I wonder if there's a way to put a spotlight on that practice? Medium post?
I question the premise. I cannot think of anything I do online at home that is essential to my being a productive member of society. 90% of my internet use at home is for entertainment. It's today's cable TV. It's not essential.
If you know anyone who is too poor for the Internet, if they live in public housing, please let them know about http://everyoneon.org/
This is a program that gives people in subsidized section 8 housing super cheap broadband. It's a bout $5 per month and gets you top quality broadband, such as a cable modem. Very similar to the old lifeline phone lines.
I question the premise. I cannot think of anything I do online at home that is essential to my being a productive member of society. 90% of my internet use at home is for entertainment. It's today's cable TV. It's not essential.
I'll counter your anecdote with my own: internet access allows me to be paid handsomely for being a productive member of society.