Higher-ed must not accept "good enough"
Summary: While K-12 Ed Tech often has to settle for barely adequate solutions in order to serve the greatest number of students and educators, this short-sighted approach is completely unacceptable for higer-education.
In recent years Education IT (especially K-12 Ed Tech) has faced flat or shrinking budgets while schools have struggled with NCLB, unfunded mandates, and uninformed administrators unwilling to challenge citizen school boards with even less knowledge about the needs of educators in the twenty-first century.
At the root of this problem are state legislatures who are blindly following the lead set by an ever more polarized and cynical electorate unwilling themselves to provide the additional funding necessary to keep their children competitive in an increasingly global society.
Life-cycle funding is a rarity and purchasing decisions are often made with a "best bang for the buck" approach. This often leads to Ed Tech being forced to choose solutions which are barely suitable for meeting immediate needs and certain to be unsuitable for meeting advanced student and educator needs in as little as two years.
Meanwhile, the haggard Ed Tech group, trying to save for the next 'rainy day' often finds it's meager budget robbed by the end of the academic year. This approach is bad enough in a K-12 setting but it is intolerable in higher education.
In higher education, "best bang for the buck" is not only insufficient, it is destructive to the mission of the modern university. Even if your school is focused on undergraduate education rather than faculty research, the school's ability to attract and retain well-trained tenure-track faculty can be severely impacted if a lack of sufficient life-cycle funding means that you cannot provide your faculty with modern tools to meet their teachings and publishing needs.
If yours is a research institution serving doctoral students and their research faculty, the need for a well-funded comprehensive Education IT department is immeasurable. Not only does your research faculty depend upon institutional resources for teaching their students but they also depend upon modern tools for doing their own research -- and a state-of-the-art network for collaboration with colleagues throughout the world.
There is no room for bias in this environment either. Your decisions must not be made in a vacuum. Collaboration with those who will use your tools is a must. You must be willing to examine the suitability of a variety of solutions based solely on the requirements of your faculty and students. This means that all solutions, be they based upon Linux, Macintosh, UNIX, or Windows should be evaluated without prejudice -- while keeping in mind the needs of your educators and students. Often the best tools are not the technically superior ones but are instead the tools that your faculty and students will actually use. Usability trumps superiority every time.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
All Costs
Nowhere in this this article do I favor ...
The fact that Microsoft dominates the desktop does not preclude the use of other desktop solutions in addition to those offered by Microsoft. If your needs are such that you can meet all of your educators' and your students' needs without a Microsoft desktop, then fine. In all likelihood though, you cannot meet ALL of those needs without a Microsoft desktop. (And meeting 90% of those needs is NOT good enough in higher education.) That said, you can't meet all of those needs without a Macintosh or Linux desktop presence on campus either.
Keep in mind that Education IT is about a great deal more than desktops. Your machine room needs will be quite different and, more likely than not, will be much more heavily weighted toward UNIX and Linux than elsewhere in your environment. Your departmental research needs in the hard sciences and in engineering will also be weighted much more heavily toward UNIX/Linux than elsewhere.
RE: Higher-ed must not accept
There is plenty of room for open source ...
For instance, GIMP may work just 'as good as' Adobe PhotoShop but if you have an educator who NEEDS PhotoShop for pedagogical reasons (such as a textbook which is written with PhotoShop in mind), you need to provide it. Education IT can decide to provide both in order to keep it's licensing costs down but by not providing for the needs (real or perceived) of its educators (while encouraging them to try solutions which you find superior), you can end up short changing your students and your faculty.
marc, stop diggin you'll end up in china (nt)
Actually...
Whoosh!
Work with what you've got
One thing that you have to accept is that users absolutely refuse to learn anything new. That's not, after all, what they're there for.
And often faculty are the worst ...
Everybody has to accept "good enough"
Is ed-tech underfunded? Probably, but "spare no expense" (long the slogan in the US Defense Department, or so it seems) does not lead to good use of resources either.
Thanks for the post ...
What is needed?
You are right about another thing, Marc. Too many of these decisions/budgets are made on short sightedness often with people with more political objectives.
Good enough is just that - Good enough.
Realistically a balance must be achieved. If some specific software or hardware is required, then it should be used assuming the cost is not prohibitive. Otherwise, cost should be the main concern.
If you're teaching a class on how to use Photoshop, then you need to buy Photoshop. But suppose Adobe raises the license cost to $150,000 USD. It would be cost prohibitive to continue the class and would be cheaper to restructure the curriculum to teach digital image manipulation instead.
If you're teaching a class on digital image manipulation, then the GIMP is probably sufficient. If your textbooks refer to Photoshop, if the cost of replacing the teacher's book is less than the license cost for Photoshop, the GIMP is indeed good enough. If on the other hand, the license is cheaper, buy the license.
In practice...
That's why collaboration with the requester ...
Collaboration flows both ways.
Like I said before: Good enough is just that - Good enough.
That's why academic departments ...
Discretionary spending.
Additionally, I say let the academic departments be charged by IT for any costs incurred while supporting the non-standard software.