Revolting students, Twittering
Today’s Sunday Times http://is.gd/yuvc has two topics for discussion. The first concerns revolting students [http://is.gd/yuKy] and the second is discussed two times this week: the seemingly new (sic) phenomena known as Twitter.
[http://is.gd/yttY] (The Truman Show has arrived) and [http://is.gd/yakp] (The men who made Twitter Tweet)
The students are up in arms because teaching standards at their University have not risen in line with the implementation of tuition fees. Apparently: “The prospectus suggested lectures would be given to groups of about 100 students. In reality, they contain up to 380, although 150-200 is more typical.”
All the article serves to do is reinforce in the minds of readers a Blott-on-the-landscape style of university education. What is right about lectures being given to groups of 100 students? Never mind to a typical 150-200! I suspect (and apocryphally know) that many Professors didn’t come into the University to “teach” – but... I ask you... what can be gained by perpetuating this medieval teaching style. The students have every right to demand education rather than lecturing.
And what does the University in question say in its defence? [The University] described as “not true” the idea that increased tuition fees were intended to lead directly to improved teaching. Instead, it says they are aimed at strengthening the finances of universities
Oh really? And when the University finances have strengthened – what then? Are learners and learning still at the heart of their raison d'être? I wish the students luck. It’s about time someone cared about how education post 16 is delivered.
________________________________________________________
The amount of interest over Twitter continues to amaze me. How many column inches must this provision attract before it becomes a useless parody of itself? I now have [I am dsugden] 99 followers! I know less than half of these people. I follow just one celebrity, purely because I find the things he does and the language he uses interesting. Everyone else is a work colleague of one kind or another.
In my previous defence of micro-blogging [http://dsugden.posterous.com/micro-blogging-0] I was reacting to another Sunday Times article (don’t they ever read their back numbers?) and I’d then suggested that I and friends used micro-blogging “as a means of mutual self-support and development”. I’ve had no reason to change this opinion, despite the long drawn out illness of Jaiku (another micro-blogging site). www.jaiku.com
Today’s articles are a little less pointed and both authors seem to take the stance that it’s safer to site on the fence and only mildly ridicule the site as so many readers subscribe.
People who see the point of sites such as Twitter (and Facebook – which to me is already a hateful parody of itself!) should be allowed to continue communicating in this way without having to have the constant SPAM of new users hitting the follow-everyone button (if there is one: there must be?)
I heard one lady (my sort of age) talking to a shop assistant in Somerfield’s the other day. “Are you sure Facebook is safe?” – “yes perfectly safe – you just join and invite those you know” – “so it really is safe, really?” – “yes” – “it’s just that I heard it wasn’t safe”. “No it’s perfectly safe, as long as you just invite those you know, I’ve never had a problem.” – “So you’re sure it’s safe?” – and so on ... Just an example of media watchers and readers following like sheep I suspect but what is ‘safe’? what does it mean?
Hey ho.
David
