And then there were twelve… I have no quibbles with the people The Chronicle of Higher Education highlight as people who are innovators, but the old school notion of top x lists continues to baffle me in the internet age.
I can barely resist a chance to poke fun at The Chronicle. IMHO, their sole purpose, through misleading headlines and spurious claims, is to do the age old newspaper traditional aim of drawing eyeballs.
What works for the midway, works for the webway.
Back in December 12, 2011, The Chronicle put out a call for nominations for this list. I just spent about 20 minutes scrolling trough this list, and besides one mention of Salman Khan, I don;t see the other 11. What I did see was a ton of blatant ballot box stuffing attempts, and it is left as an exercise for the reader to pick them out. I might be interested to see what others come up with.
That said, there are more people, centers, projects in that nomination list that deserve mention, but in naming 12, the others get swept under the tug.. because they do not make for good attention getting material.
Again, I have no real complaints about the selection. Why only 12? Even number? Fits in an egg cartoon? Most academic jury?
I strongly question the Chronicle’s editorial approach- for one peson I know well- they again pigeonhole Jim Groom as Self-Described ‘EduPunk’ Says Colleges Should Abandon Course-Management Systems.
The Chronicle conbtinues to bend Jim into a cartoon version of himself; as he has not even written about LMSes for a long while, and wrote a goodbye letter to Edupounk a year ago.
The answer is obvious when you come around to reading the other choice, Adrian Sannier, touting the Pearson product that warps the whole meaning of “open” to meaning not really open “most professors have neither the technical chops nor the interest to create their own systems.” Jim is there (or Adrian is) to false pit ideas against each other.
Chronicle, I love thee, for you continue to bring fodder to toss darts at. It’s as old as snake oil.