Today, I’d like to share an example of how our collective student apathy can affect our ability to have our voices heard.
On May 1, we all received an email asking us to attend two Decanal Technology Committee meetings, which were held on May 5 and 12–both Fridays at 2:30 p.m. I canceled a meeting at Main Campus in order to attend the first “Open Forum” session but could not reschedule my May 12 meeting. Although I did not attend in an official capacity as a Student Government member, I feel that you all ought to know that lack of involvement has forfeited our ability to be cohesively heard when we do step forward to take action.I’m unsure how many of you read the email or reports, so I’ll share some of what I found to be most distressing from those reports, along with some of my own thoughts.
The committee’s Autumn Report, which was provided as a web link within the email, stated that the purpose of the committee is to review existing technology resources, identify any emerging technologies we might be missing out on, and analyze the costs and benefits associated with these technologies.
The report shared the results of two surveys that were put out at the beginning of first quarter–one to faculty/staff and one to students. All enrolled students not taking a Freshman English course (3,548 of us) received an email asking basic questions about our computer and software usage and accessibility. The remaining 1,021 of you were given the survey in your Freshman English classes.
Of the 3,548 emailed surveys, a whopping 76 were filled out and returned to the committee, while 179 Freshman English students returned their hard-copy surveys.
From this sampling, the committee’s report stated the following:
“It is clear that the vast majority of our students own computers, have Internet access and most of the software they need at home. It is also clear that relatively few are interested in wireless access at RWC.”
In addition, the following was stated as part of the faculty/staff survey synopsis (of which 34 full-time faculty, two adjuncts, and 12 staff members responded):
“There were about a dozen requests for wireless access for students, with student convenience as the overwhelming rationale.”
I was amazed that these conclusions were drawn from such a miniscule sampling of our students–many of whom were likely new to RWC, considering Freshman English courses are fundamental first-year requirements.
These quotes were discussed in the Forum meeting on May 5, and the authors stated those types of statements would not be reflected in their final report to the Dean.
The Autumn Report also noted that a number of additional requests were made on our behalf by our professors and stated:
“Requested technologies included virtually every hardware and software product on the market, including several high-end technologies of use to very few. Recurring themes included more and higher quality ceiling projectors for computer image display; more smart classrooms like Muntz 156; more computer classrooms like Muntz 349, which includes both desks for students during lecture, and a separate area with computers for individual or group work. A number of faculty who use computer classrooms find that they are more nuisance than help; on a recent evening, one computer classroom was a sea of solitaire while the lecture was unfolding. It is increasingly important to these faculty to control the students’ use of the computers during class time.”
I was disappointed by the show of personal opinion reflected in these statements–to state unequivocally that the several high-end technologies requested were “of use to very few,” seemed unfair. And it seemed that for many of the good suggestions made by faculty or staff, biased statements inevitably followed to point out reasons the suggestions were implausible. At some points, the report bordered on insulting.
The Winter Report was included in the body of the email, and it indicated that the committee wished to gather more information from academic and administrative departments with regard to the purposes for their requests.
The report stated it “is clear that more instructors want to use electronic content in their classes, implying a need for additional classrooms with a permanent networked instructor’s computer and projector.” They further commented that as “additional rooms are provided with computer/projectors, the issues of projector quality, screen placement and lighting control will have to be discussed.”
I was pleased to see that most of the bias was removed from the second report. It noted that “rolling computer classrooms” might be a possible solution which would contain a number of wireless laptops for delivery upon request.
Although the Winter Report included no mention of any pros or cons to these potential solutions, the Autumn Report clearly delineated an opinion on the matter, stating:
“Wireless networks provide convenient access to networked resources. This access needs to be managed to prevent irresponsible, unrestricted access to college and university resources. With unrestricted access, unknown or unidentifiable individuals may potentially consume excessive resources, hack into computer systems or operate networked services. These activities leave the college and the classroom vulnerable to foul play without the means to identify and deny access to offenders. To prevent abuse, a registration system that identifies an individual with a given computer and an authentication system that restricts network access to registered individuals must be implemented. These systems are not in place at RWC, they require significant resources to implement, and they are required whether the wireless implementation is global in scope or limited to isolated venues.
Wireless networks presuppose a widespread use of laptop computers. Laptops cost more than desktops yet are less capable than desktops. Laptops come with slower processors, less memory and smaller hard drives than their desktop counterparts. Laptops are more fragile than desktops and by their nature are more frequently damaged. Experience has shown that most laptops are unable to survive a five year replacement cycle. All of this adds up to less utility for more money.
A serious constraint on universal wireless network access is limited laptop battery lifetimes. A good laptop battery will typically last two to three hours without recharging. While this lifetime easily covers a typical class, it is not sufficient to cover a typical full time class schedule. Classrooms will require a power outlet for every desk. It is not reasonable to require computers in the classroom and not provide the power required to keep them operating. Ironically, this turns our classrooms back into wired facilities. It is hard to tell if this situation will ever really change. Batteries continue to improve but the loads placed upon them continue to increase at about the same rate.
Wireless access for academic computing is further complicated by student computing support and network security. Students who bring their own computers to campus will also bring their own software. Coordinating software applications between academic lab computers and student computers becomes a problem. Student computers are to a large extent maintained by the students themselves. When a student computer gets a virus and spreads it throughout the college, what will we do; deny him access until he fixes it, or do we fix it? What are the limits of college support for student computers?”
During the meeting, the majority of conversation was sparked by my responses to these (and other) statements. It was clear to those who were running the meeting, and some who were in the back of the room as well, that I do not have a background in I.T., and I have to tell you, I began to feel like an utter idiot. Many of their comments were disparaging and angry.
I realized that years of student apathy and insolent behavior from a portion of our student body has taken its toll on some of our school officials.
I’m not sure what can be done to erase the problems of the past or convince these officials that not every student deserves to be treated the way I was treated, but I do know that if these kinds of interactions persist, this school will continue to lose what makes it a great place to be–the people who actually care.
During the meeting, I brought up several important points that need to be reiterated by other students:
1) Many students have absolutely no idea about the issues that surround us, faculty, staff, and administrators daily, and there MUST be better communication devices made available–holding “Open Forum” meetings at times when no students are in the building is ludicrous. It should be noted that staff, administration, and faculty are all PAID to be in attendance at meetings such as these, and it is THE STUDENTS’ tuition that pays them. I made it clear that we do not have the ability to call off work, cancel meetings, and put our children at bay when a committee needs our opinions.
2) All students do NOT have sufficient access to computers, software, or printers at home, and even those that do still require access before, after, and in between classes while on campus.
3) Our computer labs do not have enough computers available during peak hours, especially during exam weeks. At least some computers ought to be made available for extended hours on Saturdays and Sundays during midterms and finals.
4) Wireless access is NOT something that students have no educational use for, and it was noted that the other UC colleges, including Clermont, have already implemented this technology.
5) Students are much more likely to be involved in their Blackboard sites than in their BOL accounts–important messages and surveys should be noted in Blackboard.
I find it disheartening that those who wrote the first report were charged by the Dean to identify technologies that could “enhance our ability to meet our [UC 21] mission” (putting students at the center) but instead found it necessary to end their report by asking, “What are the limits of college support for student computers?”
Feel free to email me at cowanka@email.uc.edu with any questions, suggestions, or comments you’d like to have addressed. I will be happy to forward your responses to the committee members and can also forward the full text of the email from May 1 to you if need be.
Yeah, and, uh, no responses since last time.
Want to be informed and have a say? Email your contact information to studgovt@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu.