6 ms·

The Rise of the 'Edupunk'

50 points by cwan 16y ago

edkennedy 16y ago
The term 'Edupunk' being as vague as it is, this article could also be focused on auto didactics. Punk meaning individualism and free thought.
michaelchisari 16y ago
It's an interesting analysis of the current situation, but the proposed methods for changing the system are depressingly trendy: Just as “flash mobs” summon young people to engage in some simultaneous bizarre act in a specified place at a specified time, the “flash seminars” alert students to an edgy topic -- no examples of how edgy -- that will be discussed in a professor's living room. If they want a good model of popular education and intellectualism, they do exist. Take the amateur astronomy community, for instance, or Wikipedia culture.
- eru 16y ago
  Yes, though Wikipedia's internal wrangling and deletionist slant can be ugly.
rick_2047 16y ago
I don't understand where is the problem in accessing students who learn from open courses (I am not saying there is no problem, but I just don't understand it). Most of the grading is done based on quizes, mid terms, terms, term papers etc. All these can be given by these students and you get the assessment.
- apike 16y ago
  Testing in post-secondary is usually very idiosyncratic. At best they teach to a textbook and test that textbook evenly. More likely, a professor teaches their angle on a subset of the topic, and then grades based on that. Because of that, if you understood the 3rd year Algorithms courseware from MIT, you would likely fail the midterm for 3rd year Algorithms at your local university. Fixing this is very difficult, since it would mean you need standardized tests to measure post-secondary topics. Implementing that (and keeping it up to date) would be extremely difficult and contentious.
  - aik 16y ago
    I believe it's perfectly OK that you can succeed in Algorithms at one school and not do perfectly at another with the same knowledge. The area where I believe the problem is in specifically teaching to a test, rather than general deep understanding (of algorithms in this example). Tests in a lot of cases don't test for deep understanding, but rather memorization and understanding of very specific algorithms. The focus is completely off. It's the "meta-algorithmic structure" that matters for the future of students (when they themselves have to go learn/create algorithms to solve future problems), not just recall the small subset of algorithms they learned in school.
    - rick_2047 16y ago
      I believe it's perfectly OK that you can succeed in Algorithms at one school and not do perfectly at another with the same knowledge. How is this OK? Its the fact, but its most certainly not the right thing.
- wisty 16y ago
  The problem is, universities are verticals, selling both knowledge and assessment. Like IBM, Sun, and HP selling the OS and hardware. The knowledge is already a commodity, but the unis still want to bundle it with their exams.
Towle_ 16y ago
tl;dr: They don't get it.
_delirium 16y ago
If I were thinking of something to call "edupunk", I don't think this weird flash-mob-based, social-media-tinged approach to education would be it. What about the methods of education punk culture has actually promoted for decades? Stuff like: disseminate information to let people do things themselves (the DIY ethos), free courses, free or low-cost zines, volunteer-taught skills workshops, etc.
- mparr4 16y ago
  It is somewhat comical hearing these $40k+ a year schools talking about what they perceive as a coming paradigm shift within academia. If people are taking free courses online, or teaching themselves or others with the only cost being the time they put in, how could universities possibly make money off a situation like that? To me it seems that this shift isn't happening within academia, but is a shift away from academica. Who needs them anyway?
  - aik 16y ago
    In my opinion the very definition of academia today is proof of its lack of necessity. And that is the exact reason why they need to change - and change, not be destroyed - there is much need for such institutions still. Even the most ardent self-learners can benefit from mentorship relationships, so that's where universities need to focus.
    - mparr4 16y ago
      Why do we need academia for mentorships? Certainly academia is not useless (though I guess I was implying that in my previous post with the "Who needs them anyway?") but I do think that academic institutions will likely become less and less relevant. I'm currently in a PhD program studying Environmental Engineering and its so structured and balkanized and specialized that its really pretty ridiculous (and I'm at one of the more progressive, liberal Engineering programs in the country). It occurred to me that it would be incredibly interesting if, instead of having to research at Universities and thus, working within their outdated framework, what if people began researching at places like Google? What if companies like Google funded imaginative, interdisciplinary research? Stuff that gets bogged down in the highly procedural academia? I might try and think of a way to better articulate this idea and see what the HN community thinks of it...
nl 16y ago
As someone who spent 5 years working for an agency that was supposed to connect educators with technology, I feel quite qualified to say: HA HA HA HA! I read quotes like: In a bow to the “Edupunks,” Sullivan explained that Virginia is incorporating student habits into its pedagogy. For example, the university is experimenting with “flash seminars.” Just as “flash mobs” summon young people to engage in some simultaneous bizarre act in a specified place at a specified time, the “flash seminars” alert students to an edgy topic -- no examples of how edgy -- that will be discussed in a professor's living room. To raise the hype level, only the first 25 students who show up are allowed to participate in this non-credit-bearing activity. and I think of the endless papers I've seen on how social networking/ipads/location based services/mobile computing/cloud computing/whatever was hot in the tech sphere six months ago is going to revolutionize education. I'm continually reminded of cargo cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult: A cargo cult is a religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.) Education systems have huge budgets, but they are always run by such second rate people that the money is never used as a lever to get what they need. Education systems are quite happy to spend millions of dollars on consultancies and studies, but because the focus is on risk avoidance they never actually achieve anything. (And yes, there are a few exceptions. Having destroyed myself trying to achieve anything in that sector I applaud all the more for those who have managed it.) For anyone considering doing a company in this space, read all the warnings you hear about doing enterprise software, and then take away the fact the most enterprises are at least rational (if slow). Then also remove the fact that enterprises pay people well, so they are usually a few decent people who you can deal with. Then add in politics, the election cycle, unions, teachers, lectures, "duty of care" considerations. If you are still considering that sector, then good luck!!
- aik 16y ago
  I'm fascinated by your comment. Would you mind going into more detail about your comment - "Having destroyed myself trying to achieve anything in that sector" - I'm on my way into that sector and would love hearing how you "got destroyed", and for what reasons?
- patio11 16y ago
mitchellhislop 16y ago
As a student at a university, I totally agree. i hear more and more students complaining about the education, and more people (such as myself) starting to look elseware. A group of us have formed a "class" around some of the open courseware so that we are still in the class-like atmosphere. we want to learn. the university just refuses to teach us what we want and how we want to learn it.
brudgers 16y ago
My spouse teaches part-time in the UoP (University of Phoenix) system. Their interface is sparse, the classrooms are largely asynchronous, and the faculty largely anonymous. It works because UoP knows what it's selling - College Degrees. Public universities can't admit to themselves that selling degrees is what they do for political reasons - doing so is anathema to alumni and academics. So they are compelled to "deliver rich media," hold classes at scheduled times, and cater to the traditional leanings of brick and mortar professors. It's a model that doesn't scale. The opportunity in higher education is cheaper degrees with higher customer service...I personally believe it is quite achievable. Particularly if one replaces accreditation with reputation.
- mparr4 16y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean by "reputation"? I think it's potentially a really interesting point and I'd just like to have a better idea of what you mean by it.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    Some further remarks: Accreditation is a minimum standard, and is applied to the institution as a whole. As I'm carelessly throwing it around, "reputation" would refer to the effectiveness of an institution's graduates due to their education. I guess I'm getting at a vocational measure, e.g. how well is a graduate prepared as a professional. The issue with online education is that accreditation is typically purchased through the acquisition of an existing brick and mortar school. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/ However, if you are hiring a fresh graduate as a programmer, accreditation doesn't differentiate the candidates because they all have accredited degrees. What matters more is the ability of the school to turn out people with a higher caliber of skills, knowledges and abilities...the number of books in the library and Phd's on the professor's office walls aren't the important metric. Accreditation matters for graduate schools and for licensing boards (law, medicine, etc.). Building the rest of higher education around it, doesn't make a lot of sense.
tyrmored 16y ago
Does anyone else find it just a little bit chilling that the idea of a group of people educating themselves independently is seen by modern society as weird?
lhnz 16y ago
...you motivate people by helping them to learn what they're interested in learning and not through gimmicks like a flash mob. If you think you have the ability to 'trick' people into learning then you are mistaken. This is thoroughly embarrassing. The establishment needs to realize that learning can be enjoyable for people that take pride in it or see it as a way to an end. Edupunks, Autodidacts and the like come from people having real passions and learning how to harness this to learn.

50 points by cwan 16y ago

The term 'Edupunk' being as vague as it is, this article could also be focused on auto didactics. Punk meaning individualism and free thought.

michaelchisari 16y ago

It's an interesting analysis of the current situation, but the proposed methods for changing the system are depressingly trendy: Just as “flash mobs” summon young people to engage in some simultaneous bizarre act in a specified place at a specified time, the “flash seminars” alert students to an edgy topic -- no examples of how edgy -- that will be discussed in a professor's living room. If they want a good model of popular education and intellectualism, they do exist. Take the amateur astronomy community, for instance, or Wikipedia culture.

eru 16y ago
Yes, though Wikipedia's internal wrangling and deletionist slant can be ugly.

rick_2047 16y ago

I don't understand where is the problem in accessing students who learn from open courses (I am not saying there is no problem, but I just don't understand it). Most of the grading is done based on quizes, mid terms, terms, term papers etc. All these can be given by these students and you get the assessment.

apike 16y ago
Testing in post-secondary is usually very idiosyncratic. At best they teach to a textbook and test that textbook evenly. More likely, a professor teaches their angle on a subset of the topic, and then grades based on that. Because of that, if you understood the 3rd year Algorithms courseware from MIT, you would likely fail the midterm for 3rd year Algorithms at your local university. Fixing this is very difficult, since it would mean you need standardized tests to measure post-secondary topics. Implementing that (and keeping it up to date) would be extremely difficult and contentious.
- aik 16y ago
  I believe it's perfectly OK that you can succeed in Algorithms at one school and not do perfectly at another with the same knowledge. The area where I believe the problem is in specifically teaching to a test, rather than general deep understanding (of algorithms in this example). Tests in a lot of cases don't test for deep understanding, but rather memorization and understanding of very specific algorithms. The focus is completely off. It's the "meta-algorithmic structure" that matters for the future of students (when they themselves have to go learn/create algorithms to solve future problems), not just recall the small subset of algorithms they learned in school.
  - rick_2047 16y ago
    I believe it's perfectly OK that you can succeed in Algorithms at one school and not do perfectly at another with the same knowledge. How is this OK? Its the fact, but its most certainly not the right thing.
wisty 16y ago
The problem is, universities are verticals, selling both knowledge and assessment. Like IBM, Sun, and HP selling the OS and hardware. The knowledge is already a commodity, but the unis still want to bundle it with their exams.

Towle_ 16y ago

tl;dr: They don't get it.

_delirium 16y ago

If I were thinking of something to call "edupunk", I don't think this weird flash-mob-based, social-media-tinged approach to education would be it. What about the methods of education punk culture has actually promoted for decades? Stuff like: disseminate information to let people do things themselves (the DIY ethos), free courses, free or low-cost zines, volunteer-taught skills workshops, etc.

mparr4 16y ago
It is somewhat comical hearing these $40k+ a year schools talking about what they perceive as a coming paradigm shift within academia. If people are taking free courses online, or teaching themselves or others with the only cost being the time they put in, how could universities possibly make money off a situation like that? To me it seems that this shift isn't happening within academia, but is a shift away from academica. Who needs them anyway?
- aik 16y ago
  In my opinion the very definition of academia today is proof of its lack of necessity. And that is the exact reason why they need to change - and change, not be destroyed - there is much need for such institutions still. Even the most ardent self-learners can benefit from mentorship relationships, so that's where universities need to focus.
  - mparr4 16y ago
    Why do we need academia for mentorships? Certainly academia is not useless (though I guess I was implying that in my previous post with the "Who needs them anyway?") but I do think that academic institutions will likely become less and less relevant. I'm currently in a PhD program studying Environmental Engineering and its so structured and balkanized and specialized that its really pretty ridiculous (and I'm at one of the more progressive, liberal Engineering programs in the country). It occurred to me that it would be incredibly interesting if, instead of having to research at Universities and thus, working within their outdated framework, what if people began researching at places like Google? What if companies like Google funded imaginative, interdisciplinary research? Stuff that gets bogged down in the highly procedural academia? I might try and think of a way to better articulate this idea and see what the HN community thinks of it...

nl 16y ago

As someone who spent 5 years working for an agency that was supposed to connect educators with technology, I feel quite qualified to say: HA HA HA HA! I read quotes like: In a bow to the “Edupunks,” Sullivan explained that Virginia is incorporating student habits into its pedagogy. For example, the university is experimenting with “flash seminars.” Just as “flash mobs” summon young people to engage in some simultaneous bizarre act in a specified place at a specified time, the “flash seminars” alert students to an edgy topic -- no examples of how edgy -- that will be discussed in a professor's living room. To raise the hype level, only the first 25 students who show up are allowed to participate in this non-credit-bearing activity. and I think of the endless papers I've seen on how social networking/ipads/location based services/mobile computing/cloud computing/whatever was hot in the tech sphere six months ago is going to revolutionize education. I'm continually reminded of cargo cults (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult: A cargo cult is a religious practice that has appeared in many traditional tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically advanced cultures.) Education systems have huge budgets, but they are always run by such second rate people that the money is never used as a lever to get what they need. Education systems are quite happy to spend millions of dollars on consultancies and studies, but because the focus is on risk avoidance they never actually achieve anything. (And yes, there are a few exceptions. Having destroyed myself trying to achieve anything in that sector I applaud all the more for those who have managed it.) For anyone considering doing a company in this space, read all the warnings you hear about doing enterprise software, and then take away the fact the most enterprises are at least rational (if slow). Then also remove the fact that enterprises pay people well, so they are usually a few decent people who you can deal with. Then add in politics, the election cycle, unions, teachers, lectures, "duty of care" considerations. If you are still considering that sector, then good luck!!

aik 16y ago
I'm fascinated by your comment. Would you mind going into more detail about your comment - "Having destroyed myself trying to achieve anything in that sector" - I'm on my way into that sector and would love hearing how you "got destroyed", and for what reasons?
patio11 16y ago

mitchellhislop 16y ago

As a student at a university, I totally agree. i hear more and more students complaining about the education, and more people (such as myself) starting to look elseware. A group of us have formed a "class" around some of the open courseware so that we are still in the class-like atmosphere. we want to learn. the university just refuses to teach us what we want and how we want to learn it.

brudgers 16y ago

My spouse teaches part-time in the UoP (University of Phoenix) system. Their interface is sparse, the classrooms are largely asynchronous, and the faculty largely anonymous. It works because UoP knows what it's selling - College Degrees. Public universities can't admit to themselves that selling degrees is what they do for political reasons - doing so is anathema to alumni and academics. So they are compelled to "deliver rich media," hold classes at scheduled times, and cater to the traditional leanings of brick and mortar professors. It's a model that doesn't scale. The opportunity in higher education is cheaper degrees with higher customer service...I personally believe it is quite achievable. Particularly if one replaces accreditation with reputation.

mparr4 16y ago
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "reputation"? I think it's potentially a really interesting point and I'd just like to have a better idea of what you mean by it.
- brudgers 16y ago
  Some further remarks: Accreditation is a minimum standard, and is applied to the institution as a whole. As I'm carelessly throwing it around, "reputation" would refer to the effectiveness of an institution's graduates due to their education. I guess I'm getting at a vocational measure, e.g. how well is a graduate prepared as a professional. The issue with online education is that accreditation is typically purchased through the acquisition of an existing brick and mortar school. See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/collegeinc/view/ However, if you are hiring a fresh graduate as a programmer, accreditation doesn't differentiate the candidates because they all have accredited degrees. What matters more is the ability of the school to turn out people with a higher caliber of skills, knowledges and abilities...the number of books in the library and Phd's on the professor's office walls aren't the important metric. Accreditation matters for graduate schools and for licensing boards (law, medicine, etc.). Building the rest of higher education around it, doesn't make a lot of sense.

tyrmored 16y ago

Does anyone else find it just a little bit chilling that the idea of a group of people educating themselves independently is seen by modern society as weird?

lhnz 16y ago

...you motivate people by helping them to learn what they're interested in learning and not through gimmicks like a flash mob. If you think you have the ability to 'trick' people into learning then you are mistaken. This is thoroughly embarrassing. The establishment needs to realize that learning can be enjoyable for people that take pride in it or see it as a way to an end. Edupunks, Autodidacts and the like come from people having real passions and learning how to harness this to learn.