Image by Martin Kingsley
Prof. Hacker cannot help but think that the author of this article–from, ahem, Fast Company–is confused about some of the central qualities of the edupunk movement:
The edupunks are on the march. From VC-funded startups to the ivied walls of Harvard, new experiments and business models are springing up from entrepreneurs, professors, and students alike. Want a class that’s structured like a role-playing game? An accredited bachelor’s degree for a few thousand dollars? A free, peer-to-peer Wiki university? These all exist today, the overture to a complete educational remix.
A few questions come to mind:
- How, exactly, does one qualify as a punk while enjoying venture capital funding?
- Why is Jim Groom, godfather of edupunk, granted no more than a couple of sentences in the fourth paragraph?
- Why—in an article supposedly explaining an anti-corporate, diy movement—is Richard Ludlow interviewed about his ideas for “a workable business model” involving “revenue sharing with a lot of universities”?
Consider, if you will, this Groom quote from Leslie Madsen Brooks’ “Introducing Edupunk” on BlogHer:
BlackBoard makes an inferior product and charges a ton for it, but if we reduce the conversation to technology, and not really think hard about technology as an instantiation of capital’s will to power, than anything resembling an EdTech movement towards a vision of liberation and relevance is lost. For within those ideas is not a technology, but a group of people, who argue, disagree, and bicker, but also believe that education is fundamentally about the exchange of ideas and possibilities of thinking the world anew again and again, it is not about a corporate mandate to compete—however inanely or nefariously—for market share and/or power. I don’t believe in technology, I believe in people.
Well, I do believe that answers my second question. Although not an edupunk, Prof. Hacker cannot help but admire the ethos of the movement, as this earlier post might suggest.
What are your thoughts, dear reader, on the future of edupunk?
One Comment
Hi Prof. Hacker
Nice site, though struggled to get on from a Google alert earlier as I think you had a 500 error. Glad you’re back up! I’m still making up my mind on this, hence why I’ve been collecting together all the other headline grabbing pieces on this other than the Fast Company piece. You can check them out on PsychFutures here: http://psychfutures.ning.com/profiles/blogs/2009-the-year-edupunks-killed
In principle, I’m for it. And who doesn’t want to be associated with the Napster movement of Education. But I also see why people scratch around still thinking about the money and food on the table thing. And I also see the corporate vultures circling, so while I hope the ideals stay ideal, I can see many ways why it’s going to take a real concerted effort.
Will subscribe now!
One Trackback
[...] in the changing identity of the scholar (we’ve seen growing attention most recently to “edupunk” in news circles) and the changing nature of scholarly communication. (See this post and this [...]