I Know What You Did Last Semester.

Ok, No, I Only Know How Many Classes You Attended...

Digital attendance taking systems in colleges. Bunking classes and life as an undergraduate are synonymous for almost all college students. On the 31st of August, Newsweek published an article about the implementation of digital attendance taking systems in US universities. The crux of the article is that universities want to take action considering dwindling attendance and its impact on students' GPA. Therefore, the system wherein students tap their ID cards on scanners when entering class. The sole opinion expressed in the article criticizes this system for focusing on attendance rather than learning; I'm afraid I don't quite agree.

What really is the college management expected to do to better the quality of education experienced by a student? The onus of a students’ education lies ultimately with the students and the teachers that teach those students. So while, it is all good to point out that a better way to solve the problem of college dropouts is to focus on the active learning components, it doesn’t work out realistically. Firstly, the two approaches require action by distinct parties. And secondly, attendance is kind of a prerequisite if the intention is to encourage active learning in the classroom! So I think that the university administration should be given some support for trying to solve the problem as opposed to sitting there saying, "What can we do about student attendance?!"

(Dear College Admin, as someone with experience in tapping cards for attendance, a lot of people will only pass people their cards. So you might consider biometric attendance. I mean, nobody would give someone a finger just so that I can sleep in late and miss class, right?!)

Why a Debate on the "Rising Cost of Education" Brings the Word Misnomer to Mind

Colleges and universities and the term 'Education' are generally thought to be synonymous. To be honest, I have never really seen the direct correlation everybody else does, especially since i entered university myself. Education is about knowledge, learning, growing and broadening your horizons to whatever extent you wish to push yourself to. What is needed for that is a curious mind and a will to find answers to the questions devised by that curious mind by whatever means possible. Sitting in class and half-heartedly listening to a lecture or cramming for examinations does not necessarily imply getting an education in any sense of the word.

So why do we go to university and pay handsomely to do so? Because a university degree is societal recognition, albeit recognition of expertise you may or may not have acquired. The brand name of the university that awards the degree is the mark of the standard of expertise acquired by the degree-holder. Those societal recognitions are what we empty our pockets for, thinking otherwise is probably delusional. Until we find a better way to recognize expertise, the current university system will have to do.

The recent debate about the American Higher Education System, covered comprehensively in an essay by Christopher Shea entitled "The End of Tenure?", does not in my opinion cover any of the above. Professors are highly paid because we assign a high value to the recognition that comes along with a degree. We support research in universities because we want to expand our societal knowledge base. "Too much" specialization is just a by product that we can choose to accept or weed out, although weeding out will require the Congress to frame a bill - "Standards of Acceptable Specialization", which should be a hilarious affair all in all.

It is ironic that in an era supposedly characterized by freedom of information access, namely the Web 2.0 era, we are worrying about the increasing costs of education. Because education was always free for the taking, although admittedly less accessible than it is now. The cost that has risen - that of the societal contractual recognition of expertise and the brand name supporting that recognition.

"Mirror, Mirror on the"..um..Screen?

"STUDY: Social Media Is For Narcissists" reads a headline on Mashable. A slight misrepresentation of the actual study from my point of view, but lets run with it. It is a little bit like stating narcissistic tendencies correspond to more time spent in front of the mirror. The real issue that possibly needs pointing out is that social media promotes narcissism. While extolling the benefits the web2.0 age has brought us, we tend to overlook how the web2.0 era is fundamentally altering us. That alone does not make it bad; all I intend is that we need a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis perhaps.

Social media promotes narcissism by putting the individual front and center. Every thought and desire finds an outlet via some virtual platform or the other. Tweets, status messages, blogs, profile pictures, vlogs, even like and dislike buttons focus on ME. With the influx of social media in our daily lives isn't it natural that we become more narcissistic as a society? After all who could resist the opportunity to be whatever they want to be; its the new apple in the garden of eden. It's like looking in the mirror and seeing the perfect image you always wanted to see but never could given the laws of physics. So really social media is for society - a more narcissistic society.