[Edu-sig] SHIKSHANTAR

[Arthur]

Kirby writes -

> With regard to profits, though, I'm not sure why there's a disconnect.
> I'm
> *wanting* smart companies to market to these eager youth, to *help* them
> circumvent a stultifying schooling, if that's what's in the way.  I don't
> think our difference is over the concept of profit per se, but over the
> cheap, underhanded way that some companies "earn" (not) their profits.  On
> this, there will be some differences of opinion, but for the most part, I
> bet we'll agree at least half the time (re which companies are doing
> quality
> work).

I'm not sure where our difference lies.

Do you see some gizmo-doohickey coming around the corner sufficient to teach
the average US student the lesson he/she probably most needs to learn, in
order to become ready to learn - to remove their focus from the next
gizmo-doohickey coming around the corner.

Whether the student is over privileged, or under, the lesson plan should
probably be the same - and a theme running through it should be about doing
more with less.  

Aren't I being Fullerist?

Where is the money to be made in promoting this lesson plan? Do we expect a
profit-driven enterprise to be conceptualizing along these lines? 

I have no beef with Corporate America, as a more general matter.  (I was
glad to see Disney enter the video game market - glad for kids)  But
expecting something from Disney or the rest of Corporate America that it is
not configured to provide, is unfair to everyone.

Economic depression derives from excess capacity.  Emotional depression,
IMO, does as well.  

And an educational depression does as well. 

The configuration options selected are the wrong ones  - being much more the
issue than whether the hardware/software (literally and figuratively) is
already readily available. It is, as much as it will ever be.

Art