Well, we know it's not an adminiflake tweeting this. They're all about the hierarchy and "content delivery" (as opposed to "education"). As to the latter, they like it that way because then the "content deliverer" could be a trained chimp, paid as such.
I don't even disagree with all of it. Granted, my papers are usually published on twitter, so what do I know. But I'm also not a fan of hierarchy. Prestige has been dead since before I finished my BA. I have no problem with content; students have to have some raw materials to think with. You can't just jump to thinking. I'm against stopping at content, though, which I suppose is what "content delivery" could mean, if I am to employ the principle of charity. I am actually against gatekeeping, but then, I'm a hippy who's against grades as a whole. But to be against expertise is just idiotic. If you cheat, you'll see some additional nuance, but it's devoid of meaning (i.e., content has not been delivered).
I typed it into a google doc. Exactly 140 characters. Time to workshop this.
Author, what do you gain with the existential construction? Would it not be more concise, and suffer no loss of meaning, to express it as simply,
“I will advocate for higher education, but I won’t help save: prestige, hierarchies, content delivery, gatekeeping, expertise.”? (125 characters)
Or if you’d like to place a tad more emphasis on the concept of the parts,
“I will advocate for higher education, but these parts I won’t help save: prestige, hierarchies, content delivery, gatekeeping, expertise.”? (137 characters)
But lest we forget: you won’t help save expertise? Turn in your membership card. You are not one of us. Workshop over.
I will advocate for expertise but won't help save any acronym ending with the letter O. That includes SLO, GEO, PMO, CMO, and calling a college president the CEO. Because all of these things BLO.
And this, of course, illustrates the problem with twitter, and with large abstract concepts in general: while I have different gut reactions to various of these concepts, any one of them can be either good or bad depending on how it's defined, deployed, etc.
There's one interesting result, though: if there's one principle we're all (so far) willing to embrace, even without definition or further context, it's the value of expertise.
Then again, what do you expect from a bunch of people who've all spent years acquiring specialized knowledge of one kind or another?
It's real of course. I'm okay with shutting down the first two; who wouldn't be? But content delivery? Does that mean no more actual delivery of content to students? It can't mean that, surely. Expertise? Oh no. Let's not save that. Surely it marginalizes incompetents. How these terms are defined makes a lot of difference. But one would need more than 140 characters, and what century are we living in anyway!
My guess would be some tech-worl ceo. This sounds like Mark Cuban to me, but maybe the graphic subliminally (or not so subliminally) planted that in my head.
I presume that by content delivery the writer means the textbook industry. If that's the case, I'm actually on board. A group of American Historians has started an open source textbook for U.S. History (www.americanyawp.com) that looks somewhat interesting as an alternative to the predatory pricing of the big publishers. I'm fairly certain there is a shitload that can go wrong with this, but there is a shitload that could go right too.
a Scott Walker sock puppet?
ReplyDeleteThis idiot won't save content or expertise? What. The. Fuck?
ReplyDeleteWell, we know it's not an adminiflake tweeting this. They're all about the hierarchy and "content delivery" (as opposed to "education"). As to the latter, they like it that way because then the "content deliverer" could be a trained chimp, paid as such.
DeleteI don't even disagree with all of it. Granted, my papers are usually published on twitter, so what do I know. But I'm also not a fan of hierarchy. Prestige has been dead since before I finished my BA. I have no problem with content; students have to have some raw materials to think with. You can't just jump to thinking. I'm against stopping at content, though, which I suppose is what "content delivery" could mean, if I am to employ the principle of charity. I am actually against gatekeeping, but then, I'm a hippy who's against grades as a whole. But to be against expertise is just idiotic. If you cheat, you'll see some additional nuance, but it's devoid of meaning (i.e., content has not been delivered).
DeleteThat should read "my papers are not usually published on twitter."
DeleteIf it's not made up, it's very, very well done.
ReplyDeleteI typed it into a google doc. Exactly 140 characters. Time to workshop this.
ReplyDeleteAuthor, what do you gain with the existential construction? Would it not be more concise, and suffer no loss of meaning, to express it as simply,
“I will advocate for higher education, but I won’t help save: prestige, hierarchies, content delivery, gatekeeping, expertise.”? (125 characters)
Or if you’d like to place a tad more emphasis on the concept of the parts,
“I will advocate for higher education, but these parts I won’t help save: prestige, hierarchies, content delivery, gatekeeping, expertise.”? (137 characters)
But lest we forget: you won’t help save expertise? Turn in your membership card. You are not one of us. Workshop over.
expertise is for loosers.
DeleteI'm suspicious of many "experts," and admit that expertise can be misused, but expertise itself? Hard to see the downside to that.
DeleteBut that probably just makes me a looser.
Frankie Bow, I bow to you.
ReplyDeleteI will advocate for expertise but won't help save any acronym ending with the letter O. That includes SLO, GEO, PMO, CMO, and calling a college president the CEO. Because all of these things BLO.
That seems like a sound principle. There are a few decent NGOs out there, but they're not part of the academy (and some aren't so decent).
DeleteI meant only in the academy. My HMO has been very, very good to me.
DeleteI have a soft spot for HBO.
DeleteAnd this, of course, illustrates the problem with twitter, and with large abstract concepts in general: while I have different gut reactions to various of these concepts, any one of them can be either good or bad depending on how it's defined, deployed, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere's one interesting result, though: if there's one principle we're all (so far) willing to embrace, even without definition or further context, it's the value of expertise.
ReplyDeleteThen again, what do you expect from a bunch of people who've all spent years acquiring specialized knowledge of one kind or another?
It's real of course. I'm okay with shutting down the first two; who wouldn't be? But content delivery? Does that mean no more actual delivery of content to students? It can't mean that, surely. Expertise? Oh no. Let's not save that. Surely it marginalizes incompetents. How these terms are defined makes a lot of difference. But one would need more than 140 characters, and what century are we living in anyway!
ReplyDeleteBooks deliver content. So does Twitter, for that matter.
DeleteMy guess would be some tech-worl ceo. This sounds like Mark Cuban to me, but maybe the graphic subliminally (or not so subliminally) planted that in my head.
DeleteI presume that by content delivery the writer means the textbook industry. If that's the case, I'm actually on board. A group of American Historians has started an open source textbook for U.S. History (www.americanyawp.com) that looks somewhat interesting as an alternative to the predatory pricing of the big publishers. I'm fairly certain there is a shitload that can go wrong with this, but there is a shitload that could go right too.
I sock puppet--have two twitter identities--one of which is followed by our pal JS. The tweet is his, as if any of you had any doubt.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I wonder why this dude even thinks he is a prof at all. Is it that you've gotta get in to get out? Infiltrate to destroy from within?