Sometime it’s hard not to feel snarky when you read stuff like:
“Really,” says Ms. Manning, “most Stanford faculty wanted to use a platform that they read about in The New York Times.”
Really? That is what faculty want in an LMS? The one that is mentioned in the New York Times? If that is truly the case, then online learning in higher education really is as borked as all the doom mongers are saying.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be so snarky. Perhaps I should be happy that Stanford – an institution with massive resources – is willing to put some of those resources into the development of an open source LMS like edX (although there is no shortage of existing open source LMS projects that could have benefited from those resources). But when I read that the motivation to support an open source learning project is to improve the “brand” profile of the institution to make sure faculty feel like they are working with the “right” platform because it is the most popular kid in the playground instead of improving that platform for the benefit of the learners, well…yeah. Snarky.
I love that snarky post! The sad part is that in this case it probably really is all about the brand profile.
In general I get exhausted from the wrong people saying "this is what faculty want". Even worse? Statements like this when talking about educational technologies: "students need/want/demand/ more than…" Really? (Here I go, getting all snarky…)
Oh no! I've gone and infected one of the most non-snarky people I know with snark. I'm sorry, Sylvia.