The Professor's Notes

I have had a day to digest the news, and speaking as a conservative, and a life-long Republican, my first reaction remains my reaction:

“I had to hold my nose, and vote for Specter.  Now I have to do neither.”

Why vote for him, you say? Well, years ago, when I was sitting on the knee of (well, on the floor, looking up at) my Grandfather, I asked him why we should support the Maryland US Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, since he was about as liberal as the (then) junior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes.  He explained that “he may be a monster, but he’s our monster.”  A rather cynical view, but at the time (late 1970s, and the heart of the “Carter Economic Disaster” the likes of which we STILL haven’t seen since) it was clear that if Mathias lost the primary the democrat candidate would most likely win the seat, reducing the numbers of Republicans below the line allowing for a filibuster.  So keeping that number was important, if only for the greater good.

So, I learned the lesson well, and followed the logic.  When necessary, I have voted for a candidate I didn’t like “all that much” because of the greater good.

I most likely would have again.  But now, thanks to Senator Specter’s decision to return to the Democrat Party, I am free once again to vote conscience.

I am now only left with one question:  how will our good friend over at “Pressing the Flesh” respond?  Will he welcome this lost sheep into the Democrat fold after all these years, or will he actively campaign against that former Republican?  I await his post!

In a recent blog post, Stevie Rocco wrote that “Professor X is a scribe.”  She wrote that as part of a larger conversation which grew from a critique of Cole Camplese’s presentation at the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Tech Forum and his defense, and I encourage you all to go read the post.

In reading her post, however, I find that while I agree that when it comes to “how” content is delivered a “professor is a scribe” may be correct, I believe that is unfortunately a rather narrow view of the role of the professor.

Back when the printing presses were gaining ascendancy, they replaced the scribe, because they were doing what the scribe was doing–copying someone’s words for others to read.  Scribes had to be worried, since printing presses ostensibly would make fewer *random* errors than scribes would. (That said, the printing presses could easily replicate the same error by the hundreds, and now millions.)

The people who at the time should have (and probably were) most excited by this revolution were the authors.  Those people who spent time thinking, researching, and writing the texts that were now being made available at a far faster rate.

Professors are not mere scribes.  Professors are experts in their field of study, who are contributing to that body of knowledge through that research, and then share that “research informed knowledge” with the world.  One way they share that knowledge is through publications, another through presentations and talks, and finally (and perhaps most importantly) professors share it by educating the next generation.

So professors are not scribes.

Who should be worried that they can be considered scribes?  Instructors.  Those people hired to teach materials developed by someone else, without having a rigorous, peer reviewed research stream of their own.  They are simply vessels through which others speak.  THAT can be easily replaced by well-designed technology.

That said, professors are certainly worried.  Rightly so.  Not that they will be replaced, but that people seem to think they can be.

As I have written before, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Andrew Keen’s book “Cult of the Amateur.”  He argues that experts are essentially being pushed out of the arena and replaced by those whom I will call the “dabblers.”  These are people that some would say “know enough to be dangerous” but are not well-versed in the detailed specifics to be experts, and therefore unable to deal with the nuances.  In fact professors, as an integral part of their earning their terminal degree, learn the research methods necessary to truly understand the data they are viewing.  Regardless of whether one is a Hebrew Literature scholar or a theoretical physicist, the opinions of the Professor are informed by their understanding of how to interpret their data. Without such a background all interpretations are considered valid, and truth becomes subjective.

I am anything but a technophobe, but I am concerned that, as we start touting the role of youtube, facebook, twitter, and Wikipedia as ways for students to share their knowledge about materials, we fail the students.  We allow them to elevate their views, their perspectives, and their understanding of the material while simultaneously dev0lving the role of professor as mentor, guide and expert.

Let’s all work to enable better ways of helping students grasp material, but please, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that professors are “just scribes.”

Hmm… I first heard about this video on XM radio, as I was scrolling through the dial.  The general sense of the conversation was that Penn State created a “counseling training video” that cast a returning Iraqi war vet as a violent, angry white man threatening a white female instructor/professor.  The conservatives and the vets chose to be upset at being portrayed in a negative, and stereotypical manner.

Interestingly, I had apparently just missed all the media outlets that covered it, including the Wall Street Journal.  When discussing this video in the context of the rest of the videos they wrote:

The video about The Veteran is similar to the others, in that all depict abnormal behavior by young people who probably are normal, but are immature or temporarily impaired. But the characters in the other videos are all completely generic, with no distinguishing characteristics other than their sex. Only The Veteran is fleshed out enough even to be a stereotype.

The obvious objection to the depiction of The Veteran is that there is no reason to think that veterans are more prone than anyone else to lash out angrily, blaming others for their own failings. If anything, one would think that the rigors of military training and deployment would leave them more mature, at least in this regard.

Herein lies, I believe, the problem.

The video does seem to call out the “veteran” as the miscreant.  The reality is something quite different, however.  In the video, a student expresses a strong opinion, and raises his voice apparently in anger, although one could argue it is out of frustration.  At the end of the video he even “threatens” the instructor.  But not with violence.  He threatens to get her fired for what he perceives is a bias against veterans based on her anti-war comments expressed in class.

So here is the stereotype–a young, female and liberal professor, subconciously demonstrating a bias against a returning veteran.  In addition, because she knows he is a veteran having returned from Iraq, she attributes his rather benign actions to some sort of predisposition to violence, and one could perhaps argue over-reacts.

Interestingly the Wall Street Journal sees it in much the same light, although again focused on the stereotyping of the veteran when they write:

But The Veteran’s status as a veteran is relevant to the video’s story, inasmuch as he believes the instructor is treating him unfairly because he is a veteran. This lends another dimension to Maggie Kwok’s speculation about the reaction if the character were depicted as a member of an ethnic or sexual minority.

What if the student in the video were black and accused the instructor of racial discrimination? Would this be depicted, as it is in this video, as if the charge was absurd on its face? Would the student’s threat to have the (presumably untenured) instructor “fired” come across as an empty one, the way it does in the actual video? And if the department chairman in the opening exchange identified the student by asking, “Oh, the black guy?,” would that not be seen–with some justification–as bolstering the charge of discrimination?

Perhaps the most telling part about it is that no one saw the stereotyping of the veteran when the video was first done, and perhaps more telling, the University still doesn’t seem to see the portrayal of the instructor as in any way deserving comment.

Unfortunately, this video seems to gloss over two very real facts.  First, our biases affect the way we view others.  If we have a deep-seated bias against the military, and the war, then it may well spill over into how we view those who participated in it.  And of course, those on the right are just as guilty of this bias–we can easily caricature those “pinko-commie, Birkenstock wearing liberals” and assume we know why they say something, and thus hear something completely different from what they say.

But the second, and perhaps more important, fact, is that soldiers, sailors, marines, and airman are returning from the  war suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.  We need to find good, solid ways of preparing our faculty, staff and friends for those times when these veterans need more than to be “controlled” but cared for, loved, and nurtured back to a healthy life.

I would like to see someone come out and remind faculty that we need to guard against our own prejudices.  Don’t let our own views of how certain people might act result in coloring our interpretation of how they are acting.  And let’s once again let our compassion rule not only our politics, but our daily personal interactions.

So watch the video, and tell me–what bias do you see here?

Last month, Jason Calacanis (entrepreneur, and most recently founder of Mahalo) wrote in his newsletter about how he was willing to pay twitter for exposure, and he then asked his readers three questions.  I chose then to reply to him and, after waiting a respectable amount of time, have chosen to repost segments of my response here.

Enjoy!

Jason

First thank you for all your newsletters and emails that you share with the world.  As a business professor at Penn State, I find it refreshing and useful to see a business person not only being successful and touting their success, but sharing the inner-workings of their decision processes.  Certainly this most recent email with the Twitter/$500K explanation is great to show students how to actually conduct an analysis for a business decision.

I did want to answer your three questions, and then as for what amounts to a “favor” from you (to someone you don’t know.)

First, the questions:

1. Am I crazy, or crazy like fox?

Crazy?  Well I would say not–but if the choice is simply either/or, then crazy like a fox.  I actually believe you are far from crazy.  You have conducted a detailed analysis of the situation, evaluated what history has shown, and made a deliberate and informed decision.  All decisions have risk, but it appears you have worked to limit the risk (or at least understand it.)

2. What’s the value of a Twitter follower?

This one, honestly, is a “it depends on the follower.”  Of course, you have accounted for the “it depends” piece by eliminating group after group, and working down to just how many out of a million followers with be “valuable.”  I have found that followers, AND following, are quite valuable for the ways I use Twitter–and I use Twitter in different ways for different groups.  I use Twitter to connect with at least 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups.  First, there are the “supply chain” professionals actively engaged in my profession and field of study.  Then there are the educators, specifically those that are using technology to reach students.  Finally, there is the geo-specific group of folks here in Central PA, that I reach out and touch to stay connected with my community.  ed: (Of course there always exists that 3rd group–actual friends and family!)

Each has value, but in different ways.  Can I monetize this? Perhaps–but that’s not quite what I am about in a direct sense.  Although I would like to think that, as we all improve our skill sets, learning from one another, we all enhance our earnings, potential and kinetic (to steal from Physics).

3. What’s the value of of being one of “The Suggested?”

This is an interesting one.  I think being one of “The Suggested” is great in your type of area, where you are offering services that are of value to nearly the full range of Twitter users.  I suspect if I were to show up on the list, I would end up with a large number of followers with whom I have little in common, and that “twitter-stream” would cloud the engagement with the communities I have worked to develop.
This discussion is actually what I like most about Twitter–it allows us to develop our own communities, meeting nearly an infinite set of needs and desires truly providing a platform for community.  The communities are no longer bound by time, or space, and can grow organically as people connect with what is of interest to them.

The “Requests”

//**requests deleted–for I hope obvious reasons**//

Thanks for perhaps reading this far down–I realize your time is far more valuable than mine.

Best wishes.

While I haven’t heard back from Mr Calacanis I wanted to at least share these thoughts with you, my reader.

S