[Edu-sig] Low Enrollments.

[Kirby Urner]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dethe Elza [mailto:dethe.elza at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dethe Elza
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:16 PM
> To: Kirby Urner
> Cc: 'Arthur'; edu-sig at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] Low Enrollments.
> 
> 
> On 17-Oct-05, at 12:45 PM, Kirby Urner wrote:
> > In microcosm, I suppose I'm not that different from Microsoft (I'm
> > just a
> > lot smaller).  I want to survive in a business that interests me.
> > So that
> > brings me to a philosophical question:  what's wrong with that?
> 
> There is a difference across such differences in scale.  Microsoft is
> a convicted, but unpunished and unrepentant, monopolist with goals
> which go beyond simply making money (i.e., extending their monopoly
> further to make more money in the future, as well as ideological
> goals of having a Microsoft computer on every desk).

The standard capitalist response:  so don't pin your business plans on
Microsoft.  Use their products if you must, on a pick-and-choose basis, but
develop expertise in other technologies and invest in those.  Schools should
feel free and empowered to do so, just as ordinary consumers and small
businesses should.  

In other words, why not let market forces "punish" Microsoft (which is
currently getting its ass whipped in personal music/video devices, i.e. it's
way behind Apple when it comes to iTunes and iPod).

In other words, I never disputed that we might have a problem with some
company's ethics and practices.  I'm just saying we should solve that by
working with *other* companies, not saying we're too good, too pure, to
every have friends in the for-profit sector.

> > I don't see my goal as in principle unethical.  It's what teachers
> > have
> > always wanted:  to teach, to have brilliant students who make a
> > difference
> > in the world, and to receive food and shelter while doing some
> > honest work.
> 
> It is not unethical to earn an honest living from honest work.  Many
> of Microsoft's business practices *are* unethical, and sometimes
> illegal (i.e., a former Microsoft accountant was fired when he
> revealed some of their shady bookkeeping).
> 
> I don't view that as Microsoft-bashing, just old news.  On the other
> hand, I have no interest in using Microsoft products or building on
> their platforms as I would personally feel like I was enhancing their
> monopoly and abetting known criminals.  And yet, that's exactly what
> I do at my day job.

So it's to your advantage to keep investing in projects, products and
technologies which free you from any ties to Microsoft.  I understand that.
I'm saying schools should be free in the same way.

> Apple has also been less than ethical at times, certainly they have
> been known to prey on their own developers, but they don't operate
> from a position of monopoly, they contribute back to the open-source
> community, and they genuinely innovate, so while I think Jobs is kind
> of a jerk and wouldn't want to hang out with him (no risk there!), I
> don't mind building on their platform.
> 
> IBM went through its own monopoly trial and was found not guilty, but
> they changed their business practices anyway.  They also innovate and
> give back to the open source community.  I don't have a problem with
> writing for them or getting paid to do it.  Maybe I should, because
> of the part they played in the Holocaust, but it's hard for me to
> make the connection between today's management and business practices
> and those of 60 years ago.
> 
> Everyone has a different place where they draw the line between
> ethics and making a living.  I don't like where Microsoft draws
> theirs, although there are certainly worse corporations in the
> world.  But I don't refuse to drive a Ford because Henry Ford was a
> flaming anti-Semite (I refuse to drive a Ford because they make crap
> cars).

And I'm all in support of letting people vote with their dollars based on
just such ethical considerations.

> Hmmm, starting to ramble.  I think there was a point in there, I hope
> you can find it.
> 
> --Dethe

I understand your point -- you don't like Microsoft and wish you were more
free of it, including in your day job.  My question was:  is the only way to
keep nugatory businesses out of the classroom to erect some wall or barrier
between schools on the one side, and the business world on the other.
Arthur seems nostalgic for some mythical time when this wall existed.  I
don't think it ever existed, at least not in capitalist society, wherein
business have always (a) built schools (b) recruited from schools (c)
influenced the curricula at schools and (d) had their technologies used
within the schools.

What I want to do:  field a fleet of cybervans to roam the country, coming
to town in circus mode, and staging educational knock-your-socks-off events,
or inservice trainings with less fanfare, then leave.  Schools exposed to
this new curriculum will usually wanting more -- it's an exciting future
we're advertising.  

I've already made a lot of progress in this direction.  So what if some of
these cybervans have a Google decal on the side?  Or 4D Solutions.  Or
Global Data Corporation.  All good companies.  And if Microsoft wants to
field similar assets?  Well, why not.  We'll compete.  We believe in a level
playing field.

Kirby