etc.

I keep up with many of my old U of Minnesota colleagues on Facebook. A few days ago College of Liberal Arts Assistant Dean for Student Services Chris Kearns posted an interesting analysis of how the choice between Apple iPad and Microsoft Surface tablets mirrors choices faced by those of us in Liberal Arts sectors of higher education today. With his permission, I’m reprinting the post here.

***

I read a NY Times blog by Nick Bolton titled “Why the Surface RT Failed and the iPad Did Not.” Bolton says the key reason the Surface RT failed and the iPad succeeded hinges on Apple’s willingness to cater to consumer impatience by artfully limiting choice. The key to understanding today’s consumers, in other words, is recognizing that they don’t want to think, they want to consume. The Surface RT requires them to think about ports, SD slots, pens, and a host of other choices. With the iPad, they simply start using. The device, not the choices buyers have to make in order to use it, is the hero of the story.

Bolton wrote an earlier post on 19 June 2013, before it was clear the Surface would not sell well. It is titled: “Microsoft Surface Allows People to Create.” There he begins with these observations:

Did Microsoft just pull off the impossible? Creating a beautifully designed tablet computer that might compete with theApple iPad?

The iPad, for all its glory, suffers from one very distinct flaw: It’s very difficult to use for creation. The keyboard on the screen, although pretty to look at, is abysmal for typing anything over 140 characters. There isn’t a built-in pen for note-taking, either. Of course all of this is intentional by Apple. Although there are hundreds of third party products available, Apple doesn’t seem to want the iPad to be a creator, but more of a consumer.

Microsoft, and its new Surface tablet, wants to do both.

I had not thought much about the different corporate strategies of Microsoft and Apple. And like seemingly everyone, I love my iPad. But I’ve had to work hard with additional hardware and third party apps to pull it into the territory of being a creative tool. Apple wants me to consume, to remain a cog in the corporate wheel. MicroSoft is banking that I’ll also want to participate in creating.

When I look at the situation in higher education today, I see the arts and humanities — the traditional liberal arts in general — are in the same basic position with respect to the more job-oriented colleges as Microsoft is with Apple in this this iteration of the tablet wars. Liberal Arts colleges work to train adaptability experts capable of creative thinking in response to change. That self-directed thinking begins with the undergraduate career. A student majoring in the arts, humanities, or social sciences faces a host of choices in order to plan a pathway to degree and the world beyond graduation.

Most faculty and professionals working in the liberal arts see these choices and this level of choice as a competitive advantage. But as Microsoft is demonstrating, today’s consumers don’t want choice, they want immediate gratification. They want to remove their beautifully packaged toy and begin using it immediately. And if the professional literature of higher education teaches anything unambiguous about trends in undergraduate education it is that today’s students see higher education as a consumer product, not as an investment in the next generation.

I suspect this is why the liberal arts face such tough competition with business schools or colleges of engineering. A student choosing those routes believes, wrongly — but firmly — that they need to make one choice: They simply buy their degree and all of life’s problems are solved. The liberal arts delivers the message that life is more complicated than that, and it says that the specific content you learn at 18 is not likely to apply to the world in which you find yourself at 40, 50, or older. Indeed most of what I learned as a freshman in 1973 is irrelevant to what I do in my daily work life and personal life.

The skills that last across the changing years are those that teach us to think clearly, communicate persuasively, and continue learning and adapting. These are the skills that increase our ability to choose and to create. But creative choice is out of cultural fashion in a frightened age — which may be why I read the NY Times this morning on my iPad rather than a Surface.

***

Thanks Chris!

Today is my first day as Founding Dean and Professor, College of Social Sciences and Professional Studies, University of Wisconsin-Parkside. Following a 13-hour drive (including stops) from Charlotte, NC yesterday I stayed overnight at a hotel in Racine, WI. Now I’m about to head to campus, and I’m wearing jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt. “Wait,” you may be saying, “a dean has to dress more formally than that!” Normally I would agree, but the major task today is unpacking, first at the office, and then at my on-campus apartment. So, I shouldn’t wear anything that might get torn while throwing books and boxes around! Additionally, I just have three meetings scheduled, and they are both with people I’ve already met, so I think I can get away with being super casual on day 1…especially since the t-shirt is university-branded. Tomorrow will be the first dress up day.

This day next week will be my first day as Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Professional Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. While I’m very much looking forward to joining the ranks of full-time administrators, I can’t escape years of socialization about the perils of administration: last week I closed an email to a departing department chair with “enjoy your freedom!” I should have said something like “enjoy your summer break, but in the fall you will be emailing me about wanting your chairship back!” Yes, that’s wishful thinking, I know. Few faculty members fall in love with the processes of administrative life, such as the loss of control of one’s calendar. While I enjoyed going to many meetings as a department chair, they will ramp up exponentially as a dean…27 are already on the books for July (!). Maybe I should be telling myself to enjoy this last week in my primary role as a faculty member? No, I’m ready to get started!

Last month I posted a note about wanting (maybe) to be a Google Glass Explorer. It looks like I wasn’t selected, as today The Chronicle of Higher Education has a report about professors’ mixed reviews of using Google Glass in the classroom. Oh well, I’ll check into Google Glass again after the $1500 price tag comes down.

Google Glasses are being touted as a next big technological revolution, and folks are lining up for the opportunity to lay hands on this augmented reality tool. In February Google ran an “If I Had Glass” campaign, where one submitted an entry via Twitter and/or Google+ in an attempt to receive a pre-mass production version and provide feedback to Google about its operation. My Twitter and Google+ entries included a link to a video I made on Vine, a new social media network that allows users to upload and comment on six-second video loops. As you can imagine, there is a lot of porn that must be skirted, but interesting things can actually be done within the confines of a six-second video limit (as is also the case for a 140-character tweet). My Vine is not in that category, but it can still capture the judges’ attention, I hope! Here was my tweet with embedded Vine:

‪#ifihadglass I could go beyond the norm as a new collegiate dean who starts on July 1, 2013  ‪http://vine.co/v/bglJv32b1u5

I’m not sure if I really want to be a “Glass Explorer” who has the opportunity to purchase a pair of Google Glasses for $1500 before they are released to the general public; do I really want to be an early adapter who spends that much money on a product that is sure to have bugs, and is already facing restrictions, such as in bars and in state law?!  It would sure be fun to do additional research about potential uses if given the opportunity, though! Maybe there is an updated version of technorealism out there somewhere….