Our stable and prosperous democracy has been a key condition in the swift advancement of technology in America. The freedom that comes with a republic such as our own has allowed scientists and engineers to invent and improve everything from household appliances to national defense systems. Our lives have been profoundly changed by the constant flow of innovations, and we can thank our free society for expediting the process.
Technology sought to return the favor to democracy when, during the March 2 primary election, dozens of precincts in San Diego County and elsewhere launched electronic voting units. I used the nifty new touch-screen devices with little mishap, but other voters in the county were not as fortunate. It was reported later that technical problems had caused 36 percent of the precincts to open late, turning away many morning voters and dampening the inauguration of a new democratic experience.
UCSD students, not known for their passionate participation in the democratic process and thus probably hardly affected by the voting booth problems, nonetheless can identify with the application and misapplication of technology in their lives and on campus.
It’s hard to imagine how tedious registering must have been before StudentLink, and how labor-intensive paper researching must have been before the Internet came into fashion. Technology is now omnipresent, and students are among the chief beneficiaries.
With technology, the potential to overextend a good thing is ever present and many times gratified. For example, at UCSD, PowerPoint presentations give students information and multimedia in a concise and condensed form. It probably also makes the preparation of lectures somewhat easier for professors.
However, time and time again in my experience, problems with video and slides have caused delays during lecture that leave the class restless and the professor frustrated. When the PowerPoint presentation does work, on the other hand, I find myself and others mindlessly copying the slides into our notebooks rather than actually listening to what the professor has to say. I also have noticed that a lot less people come to class when the slides are posted online. Admittedly, overhead transparencies cause the same note-taking drudgery, and some classes require complicated graphs and models that can only be shown on slides. PowerPoint presentations should not be banned from the lecture hall, nor should they be accepted wholesale as an adequate and comparable alternative to traditional ways of teaching. When used occasionally to accentuate lectures or present facts, PowerPoint lives up to its name as a powerful tool without reducing learning to a one-dimensional activity.
One of the effects of technology use has been the elimination of the paper trail. E-mails have decreased the workload of the postman, and dissemination of information via the Web has cut the need for lengthy memorandums and manuals. The diminution of paper waste can only bode well for the environment and for efficiency. Students too, it would seem, would benefit from the transition of 600-page readers to online versions. However, speaking personally, and from reading comments in the C.A.P.E. compilations, electronic readers sometimes fail to compare to the actual reader. Highlighting real paper just seems more effective. Granted, students can print out selections, but this often results in a messy and confused process of finding last week’s reading printouts. As for the savings in bypassing the royalties and profits in the price of traditional readers, the cost of toner/ink, paper and public printing makes the difference less impressive. For all its “convenience,” the spread of e-readers is less handy than at first click.
Often after I log out of the e-reader files, I peruse the Web sites of prospective graduate schools in which I’m interested. A plethora of information awaits me, but sometimes in my old-fashionedness, all I want is a glossy brochure extolling the schools’ achievements and campus beauty. I call their offices for paper information, and am frequently told that everything is online now, including applications. The only unfortunate thing is that information on their Web sites is useful only when it is timely. Admissions statistics for the class of 1999 isn’t really going to help much, and “Not found 404” Web notices popping up by clicking on one expired link after another tend to frustrate rather than motivate.
Even the traditionally flesh-and-blood college advising has turned to technology. With thousands of students to take care of, the beginning of virtual academic advising makes it easier for students to have their questions answered. Students can still call in to speak to academic counselors, but the majority of queries are addressed via computer. I happily turn to my college’s academic advising site, exemplary of the good use of technology. My experience is only marred when I call to ask questions for unaddressed issues, only to be directed to the same site. When I express my desire to meet with an academic adviser, the same answer is repeated. Maybe I don’t have an urgent problem with my degree, and maybe I am not a third-quarter senior unsuitable to graduate, but I felt like I was bothering the advising office and asking for a favor rather than for a service paid for by my tuition. Combined with the grad school offices’ directive, I’ve started to wonder if Web sites have become babysitters for the absent parent of personalized attention.
Technology has also created new problems for others on campus. I’m sure that administrators and faculty alike can attest to the serious infiltration of plagiarism initiated by the Internet. Google has replaced the wandering eye as the prime suspect in collegiate cheating.
The university will never be a wireless enterprise, nor should it be. Students will never be Luddites, nor should they be. Mainstream American society bleeds technology from its Pentium server-sized pores, and our infrastructural and cultural veins have already molded to its pattern. While the risk of becoming a computer-controlled Matrix world is doubtful, the risk of accepting the new and improved without assessment is not. Americans are not known for their restraint, and universities such as UCSD are susceptible to the same mentality that drives kids to tear open boxes full of new toys on Christmas morning. Universities must not unequivocally accept technology as the better solution. We are taught to analyze, question and debate in college. Why doesn’t the same apply to the use of technology on campus? PowerPoint slides online cannot replace live lecture attendance, and innovation cannot replace responsibility in 2004 or 2904.
