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.

Marc WagnerIn 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.

Topic: CXO

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

17 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • All Costs

    Yes, usability does trump superiority (with a few exceptions). But don't confuse usability with ubiquity. Your article made a lot of sense, except where you try to substitute the near total domination of Microsoft in the IT ecosystem with usability. It will be tough for the schools to break the bonds with Microsoft. But to avoid that painful separation essentially means to let Microsoft dictate your IT budget ad infinitum. You seem to be of the mind that Linux must be avoided at all costs in the school systems. If it is avoided, it will be at all costs.
    kozmcrae
    • Nowhere in this this article do I favor ...

      ... one vendor over another. The issue is what makes the most sense for those educators and those students with a particular set of needs.

      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.
      M Wagner
  • RE: Higher-ed must not accept

    Pardon me , the 'good enough' monicker you slapped on what the Open Source , Linux based , programs have to offer was one , serious , (cyber)'slap in the face' to every OpenSource programmer out there ... And this , after MS effectively beta-ed the entire Windows community with 'VISTA' ....I submit that OpenSource programs serve a working function , and ... if the (cyber)shoe fits , for heavens sake , "wear it" ... Since the alternative program format serves the same functionality , we're all winners ...
    herrwitt
    • There is plenty of room for open source ...

      ... in higher education. My point is that all too often, Education IT assumes that low cost is more important than functionality. It is easy to say "... well this works 'just as good' but costs less than ..." without engaging those educators and students that actually use the tools.

      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.
      M Wagner
      • marc, stop diggin you'll end up in china (nt)

        ]:)
        n0neXn0ne
        • Actually...

          Not sure about Indiana, but the "antipodes" for much of the eastern US is in the Indian Ocean west of Australia.

          Whoosh!
          John L. Ries
  • Work with what you've got

    [i]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.[/i]

    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.
    Yagotta B. Kidding
    • And often faculty are the worst ...

      At least 25% of your student body is new every year so they are facing change anyway. Sometimes, Education IT must drag educators and their students kicking and screaming into the Twenty-First Century. But as advocates, we need to be more concerned with identifying the 'right' tools for the application than we are about getting the lowest price or most efficient.
      M Wagner
  • Everybody has to accept "good enough"

    It's not like universities can afford to give each department its very own Cray. The sky's the limit in the computer world and always has been. The trick is to accurately assess needs and then insure that the money is there to adequately meet those needs and that it is spent in a prudent fashion.

    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.
    John L. Ries
    • Thanks for the post ...

      Of course, you are correct. For bigger projects, a cost-benefit analysis is critical to understanding the underlying need. The key though is to engage those with the need in order to insure that those needs are met with the most cost-effective solutions. Its not an A or B decision. Often it's a combination of solutions.
      M Wagner
  • What is needed?

    I think Academic Freedom vs Student Expectations is the issue at the core of this. For use in a research/lab environment there should be more freedom for the instructor to choose whats needed. Of course for a classroom/teaching environment, shouldn't the students expect to use software they will see "out in the real world"? This could be open source software, I just think the choice will depend on the course/industry being taught.
    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.
    dog15bert
  • Good enough is just that - Good enough.

    The problem is who gets to define "good enough." Leave it to the end users, and most will be using very high-end hardware with the most expensive software packages you could imagine. Leave it to the bean counters, and everyone will be using antiquated equipment and free software.

    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.
    Letophoro
    • In practice...

      ...it's better to teach principles, rather than specific packages, but given the efforts made by vendors to make sure that theirs is the one taught in schools, this is often easier said than done.
      John L. Ries
    • That's why collaboration with the requester ...

      ... is so important. Education IT needs to be able to work with faculty to determine priorities -- and faculty need some discretionary IT funds so they can decide for themselves if it is worth it TO THEM to pay extra for the software they WANT rather than the software that is just 'good enough'.
      M Wagner
      • Collaboration flows both ways.

        Faculty must be willing to accept what is good enough if the software they want is too expensive or not sufficiently better to justify the added expense. The expenditure of additional monies is foolish if less expensive software meets the needs. If there is sufficient money left over after basic needs are met, then by all means, let the faculty buy the software they want.

        Like I said before: Good enough is just that - Good enough.
        Letophoro
        • That's why academic departments ...

          ... must be provided a budget line for discretionary IT spending -- so they can decide if they are willing to use those funds to pay for licenses which Education IT cannot justify.
          M Wagner
          • Discretionary spending.

            I'd say they should be allowed to have some discretionary spending for evaluation purposes. If their evaluation is that it's sufficiently better, then they should be able to reasonably justify any additional purchases to IT.

            Additionally, I say let the academic departments be charged by IT for any costs incurred while supporting the non-standard software.
            Letophoro