Warning: Thiis comment is about journalism, not technology

I would ask reporter Andy Guess and any other writer for Inside Higher Ed to examine closely the terms of service of any software or Internet provider being discussed on this site. It should be standard newsroom procedure.

The cost per user is only a small part of any software service. How about license renewal? How about total cost for a college and who is paying for that cost? And then do your interviews. Depending on answers to terms of service, you’ll have a different source selection.

This technology may or may not be worth it; but I grow weary of students complaining about ever higher tuition and fees and advocating for technology as if it were free when it is tacked on to their annual bills, with teaching excellence centers promoting corporate technologies without a regard to cost, and with business as usual in academe while Inside Higher Ed and other outlets run articles about the sorry state of student loans in the aftermath of scandal and subprime.

In this case, in today’s issue, IHE has Doug Lederman reporting about “Rethinking Student Aid” (which is the disease) and Andy Guess reporting here on cost per user (without renewal terms and other corporate restrictions, including liability and who assumes it when glitches occur with student grades).

This is why I do articles for Inside Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education on the high cost of technology; few journalists are reporting on that adequately so that others can make intelligent choices on what the student can or cannot afford.

I’m not against technology (as I pay for it for a large journalism school); I’m against incomplete journalism that fails to connect the dots and inform readers about the true cost of tech advocacy from clickers (when students use to simply raise their hands) to Second Life (when they used to just come to class) to blue books.

Those costs may seem minimal but add up when users don’t understand tech terms like “perpetual license” and other limitations that chairs and directors must deal with. Case in point: Last month I had to find $34,000 to replace SPSS codes with a network option because our computers in one open lab were replaced from social network overuse (yet another expense) and our particular SPSS terms of service didn’t allow transfer of those codes to a new computer. That cost represents five sections of newswriting and is only one that I had to pay for after bargaining for a month with SPSS and negotiating with my faculty on why we couldn’t use a different statistical analysis program. In the end, my professors’ research won the day because the learning curve on a new software program ate up human resource time—yet another unassessed cost of technology proliferation.

But journalists typically don’t report on this because reporters have not been trained to investigate service terms routinely as we once taught reporters to do with mill levy and City Hall.

And as for the link to the Daily Tar Heel, and the opinion piece there, I’m baffled. The University of North Carolina has one of the best journalism programs in the country, and editors at this newspaper should know better. Or someone at the Journalism School, and many are my friends and former colleagues, should advise the Tar Heel to investigate the cost to students in every tech article that it does. We do that at the Iowa State Daily judged for good reason by the Society of Professional Journalists as the best student newspaper in the country. Students here didn’t like our criticism at first, but it was good medicine, and they took it. We expect the same from the Tar Heel and encourage a follow up to this editorial, whose points are well taken but out of context when cost is not addressed.

This particular editorial is indicative my concern. It states:

“This isn’t 1860. We don’t have to scrawl out long-winded treatises by hand anymore. We have these things called computers that allow you to type fast enough to keep up with your thoughts.”

Here’s a thought: In 1860 a college education was out of reach for the typical citizen. We’re getting there, slowly but surely, during an economic crisis, because of incomplete arguments like this.

I encourage the Tar Heel to take the criticism professionally as our students do here when we hold them accountable and in a follow report to the student body:

1. What are those terms of service and whom do they affect—students, teachers, the institution? 2. Is it possible, from a technology standpoint (as has been the case with certain clickers) to violate FERPA? If so, explain how and determine the risk. If not, report it because student grades gone awry often are the subject of grievance and even litigation.3. Who is paying for this service—the institution or the student? If the former, how is the institution paying for it? If the latter, what does this add to the cost of books, lab fees and everything else the student has to purchase with an identification card that doubles as a debit card at most institutions and remains a symbol of the corporatization of academe.

Finally, this particular software may or may not be worth the expense. I think it may be worth the expense, but I can’t make that determination without the financial impact. Journalists have an obligation to document that expense and provide the big picture—all those required softwares, terms of service, purchases made directly with credit cards (by both department chairs and students) rather than through purchasing via RFPs—all those accumulating expenses that may make academe convenient but exclusive over time, especially in the aftermath of easy student loans that allowed technological proliferation that someone has to pay for in the end.

And that someone, of course, is the student.

Michael Bugeja, Director at Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication, at 7:50 am EDT on October 8, 2008

Relax Michael

This is a no brainer technology. Taking blue book exams is a horrible experience for the students and the faculty. To think that all you would have to pay is $25/year (worst case) to never have to write in them again is a steal.

I did some research into the company and that cost includes 24x7 support. Also think of the money you save on those blue books; not to mention the environmental benefits. You forget that even if you only use 2 pages; the entire blue book becomes useless and is discarded.

So the solution is better for students, faculty, administration and the environment; and its less than 25 bucks a student.

DOWN WITH THE BLUE BOOK

Dave Wilson, at 11:30 am EDT on October 8, 2008

The Neccesities. . .

I thought that technology was supposed to enhance, not replace, the standards.

If the standards are no longer the standards, please inform all future employers.

I’m sure they’ll understand!

Curmudgeon Who Won’t Go Away, at 5:40 pm EDT on October 9, 2008

I second Ashley’s comments that Securexam has a proper time and a place to be implemented. I am well aware of my own terrible handwriting and I would hate to subject any professor or TA to deciphering my scribbles in a blue book; furthermore, I found that Securexam gave me freedom to plan my essays, write, and edit in a neater fashion than I could in a blue book. Nevertheless, logistics must be taken into account: if a hall or building cannot support 300+ laptops running at once, other accommodations must be made.

As more and more faculty continue to adopt Securexam, though, I am sure that the testing process will become increasingly smoother.

Glenn, UNC-Chapel Hill, at 10:55 am EDT on October 14, 2008