[Edu-sig] Excited about Crunchy Frog

[kirby urner]

> Kay's appeal is largely his Millenialism,  Kirby eats it up, and Arthur
> cries bullshit.
>

We're fighting different battles obviously (millenialism? -- which calendar?).

> This article by a UCLA professor, which manages to express more
> coherently than I some of the concerns I have tried to express on edu-sig.
>
> http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/academe.html

In contrast, here's a posting by a prof at CalTech, exulting in this
process whereby 11-15 "experts" (he being one of them) dictate to the
State, and by extension the nation (mechanism already explained) what
math curricula we must conform to.

He's militantly anti-technology, even towards the namby pamby stuff
served up by NCTM, which is mostly about TI calculators, not
programming.

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=4979217&tstart=0

> BTW, I don't agree with everyting in it.  But recognize a voice from
> responsible academia within it.
>
> Art

I read this, but it seemed mostly arguing against some straw man
"technophile" who wants to destroy the university as we know it, and
put professors out of business.

When it comes to giving his own views, he accepts technology is indeed
an agent of change, and universities will be affected (in some cases
they'll be pioneers, original thinkers -- same with professors no?).

So what's so groundbreaking about this thinking?  Mostly he's trying
to paint a shrill, cultish millenialist to focus professorial outrage.
 A common enemy.  A rallying point.  But how much reality is behind
this stereotype?

Kirby