Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) 8/23/15 6:42 AM Five ways China’s mobile culture has leapfrogged what Americans do with their phones: on.wsj.com/1HZSpDR What’s China’s edge? Technology is often just cheaper, allowing for more frequent phone swaps. Then there’s the world’s largest Internet culture—some 649 million wired people, 86% on phones—who make an incredible test base for new ideas. Many young people leapfrogged over laptops right to smartphones as their main computing device, so phones have evolved to do more.
Video of police getting teargassed by other policemen and being shamed by protestors. #طلعت_ريحتكمhttps://t.co/VL0zBPEDb8 #Lebanon
In terms of the former, our concern was whether code acts as a kind of pedagogy that is immanent and everywhere in daily life, running as a substratum of experience with the power to variously instruct, seduce, educate, liberate, discipline and govern people in their everyday lives and educational experiences. Tom Liam Lynch, one of the series speakers, has described this as “the hidden role of software in education,” drawing attention to how the lines of code and algorithms that constitute software actually work to produce new social relations, configure power dynamics, and generate new roles for teachers, learners and educational policymakers.
could set us free..
will that happen if we keep ourselves in constructs of old..?
ie: Ed experiences.. ts ss policy
rev of everyday life
a nother way
The seminars, thus, sought to focus on how the interactions between code and education might impact on knowledge practices, pedagogic techniques, learner agency, identity formation and pedagogic relationships. The resulting e-book acts as a guide for interested researchers and educators to understand how code operates within the networked publics where kids hang out; how algorithms participate in the social organization of educational practices; how the knowledge taught in schools, colleges and universities flows through digital infrastructures; how teaching is increasingly being automated by software; and how digital data is being used to make educational realities visible and actionable. In this sense, “Coding/Learning” seeks to address issues raised in recent events such as the conferenceAlgorithmic Accountability, and questions raised there about the algorithmic future of education.
heavy assumptions of a human here...
science of people ness
Writing computer code is not just a technical act but a political act; it permits the programmer to construct particular models of the external world that might work through persuasion, seduction, coercion or education to change the way people think.
ie: to let people think for themselves
previously there has been no concerted effort to understand how code acts educationally, pedagogically, or instructionally, to shape how we acquire knowledge, skills and forms of conduct. What educational understandings can help us to interpret the work that code does in the world?
wondering a lot lately... these jobs of service.. ie: health, Ed, et al.. how many of the workers could imagine making their positions/titles irrelevant..
ie: they need people to remain sick, illiterate ( non-conventional defn)
04. Abstraction may be discovered or produced, may be material or immaterial, but abstraction is what every hack produces and affirms. To abstract is to construct a plane upon which otherwise different and unrelated matters may be brought into many possible relations. It is through the abstract that the virtual is identified, produced and released. The virtual is not just the potential latent in matters, it is the potential of potential. To hack is to produce or apply the abstract to information and express the possibility of new worlds.
"It makes me think of Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, the opportunity that a disaster presents. The governor had wanted to take over many of the local schools in New Orleans prior to Katrina... Katrina happens, and within two months the state had taken over virtually every public school in New Orleans."
One of the most dangerous diversity-instead-of-justice obsessions in the education world revolves around...http://t.co/DS8IsXitX7
Sharply rising inequality of labour income focuses attention on inequality of human capital in its most general sense:
Starting with unequal prenatal development of the foetus;
Followed by unequal early childhood development and investments by parents;
Unequal educational investments by parents and society; and
Unequal returns to human capital because of discrimination at one end and use of parental connections in the job market at the other end.
Given such transmission across generations, it can be shown that the long-run, ‘dynastic’ inequality will also be higher (Kanbur and Stiglitz 2015). Although there have been advances in recent years, we still need fully developed theories of how the different mechanisms interact with each other to explain the dramatic rises in interpersonal inequality in advanced economies in the last three decades.1
One counter argument is that what matters is not inequality of ‘outcome’ but inequality of ‘opportunity’. According to this argument, so long as the prospects are the same for all children, the inequality of income across parents should not matter ethically. What we should aim for is equality of opportunity, not income equality. However, when income inequality across parents translates into inequality of prospects across children, even starting in the womb, then the distinction between opportunity and income begins to fade and the case for progressive taxation is not undermined by the ‘equality of opportunity’ objective (Kanbur and Wagstaff 2015).
graduate-school enrollment swelled over the past decade, the number of Americans owing at least $100,000 in student debt more than quintupled to 1.82 million as of Jan. 1, New York Federal Reserve data show. The number of all student borrowers nearly doubled to 43.34 million.
Propelling the surge in grad-school debt is a welter of federal programs that make it easy for students to borrow large amounts, then to have substantial chunks of those debts eventually forgiven. Critics of the system say it makes it easier for graduate schools to raise tuition, and for some high-earning graduates such as doctors to escape debts they can afford to repay.
Critics say offering unlimited loans to students, with the prospect of forgiveness, creates a moral hazard by allowing borrowers to amass debts they have little hope or intention of repaying, all while enriching institutions and leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab.
After borrowing to earn her bachelor’s, Ms. Kurowski-Alicea says, her main motivation for earning a master’s and then a doctorate was to postpone repaying her student loans, which she said were too high for her minimum-wage income at the time. The government doesn’t require payments while students are in school.
“There’s no way to pay it afterward. It’s a continuous cycle,” says Ms. Kurowski-Alicea, of Clermont, Fla.
.@GarAlperovitz recently sat down and discussed transforming the current system w/us: http://t.co/P4o3kl8zqY#NextSystem
We are at a moment in history where we are facing what can only be called systemic difficulties. Ultimately that means we are going to have to develop a way to transform the system. That’s the challenge. It’s important to clarify that neither of the old models—traditional corporate capitalism in America and state socialism––neither of those models are going to give us the right answer. So we are going to have to build and create pragmatically from the bottom up and build a new direction if we want to deal with real democracy, poverty, ecological sustainability, global warming, race issues, income distribution, and wealth distribution.
The first is we’re planning a series of meetings and conferences starting in 2016 to bring together people who understand this. We want to start a very explicit debate around the question: what would the next system look like?
They aren’t just focused on the projects, but on the infrastructure that needs to be built to scale up and generalize those projects
It’s hard to tell which path we’re currently on. I for one hope Mason is right, and that the sharing economy will bring an end to an unsustainable system. But I fear that it’s more likely to transform the world of work in a negative way, reducing quality of life for many within society. The people championing this path are those with great power within the capitalist economy.
Meanwhile, those advocating for a path towards a more equal economy – such as grassroots organisations – are currently marginalised and disempowered. It’s clear who the odds will favour.
@zeynep @emptywheel @JoeBeOne @evacide literally the only reason for Twitter or Facebook or whatnot to obey any law is revenue.
What blogging never does is substitute for other academic writing. It doesn’t get counted as scholarship. It does not serve as an employment credential. (If you wish to argue that it should, I can’t help you. I’m interested in describing what is, not what ought to be …)
Notice that I do not say that it “substitutes” for other academic writing but that it has a place alongside what is often seen as the only legitimate (that is, countable for hiring / tenure / promotion) forms of academic writing.
That makes us literary types sound pretty clueless! But setting aside bumbling confusions between content and form, I actuallythink that “the difference between a journal article and a blog essay” is notself-evident when we’re talking about literary criticism, and that’s precisely because literary criticism isnot a science or a social science. Our preoccupation with publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals reflects some anxiety on our part about that: it’s a kind of scientism that has been beneficial in making some aspects of literary scholarship more rigorous, historically attentive, and theoretically sophisticated, but that has also shaped our professional lives in occasionally disheartening ways. To be taken seriously, we know we have to look serious, which means avoiding at all costs what was once scathingly described to me (in reference to my own work) as “the whiff of belles-lettres.”
There are kinds of literary scholarship that have a lot in common with history and the social sciences, or that are so well insulated with theoretical implications that no such unsavory whiff could possibly be detected. But a lot of what literary academics do is not so much produce new knowledge as pursue new understandings of, or new ways of understanding, literary texts. Careful close readings lie at the heart of many more elaborate scholarly projects. It is certainly possible to do this kind (or this part) of criticism without the specialized language and complex apparatus that differentiate academic from non-academic versions of it. Academic training can be hugely beneficial for this enterprise, but such training need not be conspicuous to be effective. We are experts at reading literature in interesting ways and articulating those readings — that’s what we do.
Where is the self-evident line, then, between the interpretations of novels we find in academic essays and the interpretations of novels we can find on blogs — besides some specialized vocabulary and a lot more footnotes? In both cases we can and should look closely at the quality (the intelligence, the care, the subtlety, the persuasiveness) of the interpretation, but there is a fundamental similarity in the activity represented that is at least as important as any differences. It really is the same kind of thing, just done under different circumstances, for different audiences. Why should we value it, or consider it “professional writing,” only if we do it in a style and form that severely limits the audience for it and the conversation we can have about it?
The desire to draw a firm line between what we do in academic journals and what we do elsewhere is more reflective of our desire to defend ‘professing English’ as a profession than of any really principled or inevitable difference between the two. And the results of that effort have not been altogether salutary, for criticism or for our profession. There are good reasons for us to engage with the rest of the world. It’s not as if academics are the only ones interested in literature, after all. In Canada we have been hearing a lot about ‘knowledge mobilization’: if some of the value of conventional peer-reviewed publications is precisely their stability, the value of blogs could be said to be their mobility, their flexibility, and, in their own way, their accountability — because after all, there they are, open for anyone to read and argue with. Their basic model is coduction — again, not a scientific model, but one supremely well suited to the ongoing process that is criticism.
If @NHMU is meant to preserve natural history, why invest in companies making nature history? #divest #museums
you blog holds my latest finds/thoughts/ramblings. not intended for normal edu-blogger consumption or modeling. lookdirectly below for our collection of more orderly-random (chaordic) thinking... if you are so inclined...