Again, I am not interested in flaunting my “Intro to Ancient Greek Philosophy” knowledge – what I am interested in is the implications for education (and consequently, students) particular models of teaching carry with them. For example, what does it mean to have a school board? To have a curriculum? To have a teacher? To have a classroom? What beliefs about people, how they relate to one another and how they _ought_ to relate to one another, does the existence of these mundane features reveal? And not only what do the existence of these seemingly mundane features of an educational system mean on their own, but what are we to make of them when the oriflamme of individuals involved in practically every level of education would seem to indicate hopes and aspirations for education that run almost completely counter to the assumptions about people the presence of school boards and curricula point toward?

To give that last statement some grist, the presence of school boards, etc. seems to indicate a reliance on bureaucracy to solve problems, a reliance on process, programs, procedures to address the day-to-day issues of education and students. Also, school boards, etc. seem to indicate an independence on leadership, with particular emphasis given to the importance of following the dictates of someone or something else. These are just a few of the “beliefs about people, how they relate to one another in fact and how they _ought_ to relate to one another” the mundane features of an educational system reveal.

Now, what about those people in education I mentioned earlier, who have a fairly unified rallying cry when it comes to the value and necessity of universal public education that goes something like “We teach students the skills to solve the unique problems of the modern age, be self-starters, be independent and critical thinkers, and be productive members of society”? Before these teachers/administrators/counselors have even begun a lesson/changed a policy/tried to solve a student's personal problem, before these people involved in education, these good-hearted people who want all students to “solve the unique problems of the modern age, be self-starters, be independent and critical thinkers, and be productive members of society” (a.k.a. “achieve”), before these people involved in education have started doing anything, their real intentions have already been betrayed. They betrayed their real, unthinkingly concealed intentions, and have already taught the student many of the lessons that an institutionalized education reinforces – obedience, submission, shame, order, linearity, competition, duplicity… The lessons of thousands of bureaucracies and bureaucrats speak loudly through the mere act of institutionalizing the education the student in the classroom is about to get.

This is why it is important to note that Socrates allow himself to be paid to teach and why it is important to note that in the allegory of the cave, the ones manipulating the shadows that keep the shackled slaves so entertained, they are the priests, the politicians, the paid teachers. Education, properly understood, is not an experience that takes place in a temple, a court of law, or a classroom.

In his post, Alex states: “By introducing modern technology and re-defining the way we design, build and educate in our universities, effective and necessary changes can be made.” There is a strong implication here that the grafting of these new teaching methods and technologies onto the existing university structure will introduce the kind of inquiry and exploration Socrates was capable of achieving. I would argue that Socrates was able to do what he did entirely by virtue of his independence from the structures of the state.

I suppose I will conclude by saying that the invocation of Socrates is, to say the least, problematic.

Again, I am not interested in flaunting my “Intro to Ancient Greek Philosophy” knowledge – what I am interested in is the implications for education (and consequently, students) particular models of teaching carry with them. For example, what does it mean to have a school board? To have a curriculum? To have a teacher? To have a classroom? What beliefs about people, how they relate to one another and how they _ought_ to relate to one another, does the existence of these mundane features reveal? And not only what do the existence of these seemingly mundane features of an educational system mean on their own, but what are we to make of them when the oriflamme of individuals involved in practically every level of education would seem to indicate hopes and aspirations for education that run almost completely counter to the assumptions about people the presence of school boards and curricula point toward?

To give that last statement some grist, the presence of school boards, etc. seems to indicate a reliance on bureaucracy to solve problems, a reliance on process, programs, procedures to address the day-to-day issues of education and students. Also, school boards, etc. seem to indicate an independence on leadership, with particular emphasis given to the importance of following the dictates of someone or something else. These are just a few of the “beliefs about people, how they relate to one another in fact and how they _ought_ to relate to one another” the mundane features of an educational system reveal.

Now, what about those people in education I mentioned earlier, who have a fairly unified rallying cry when it comes to the value and necessity of universal public education that goes something like “We teach students the skills to solve the unique problems of the modern age, be self-starters, be independent and critical thinkers, and be productive members of society”? Before these teachers/administrators/counselors have even begun a lesson/changed a policy/tried to solve a student's personal problem, before these people involved in education, these good-hearted people who want all students to “solve the unique problems of the modern age, be self-starters, be independent and critical thinkers, and be productive members of society” (a.k.a. “achieve”), before these people involved in education have started doing anything, their real intentions have already been betrayed. They betrayed their real, unthinkingly concealed intentions, and have already taught the student many of the lessons that an institutionalized education reinforces – obedience, submission, shame, order, linearity, competition, duplicity… The lessons of thousands of bureaucracies and bureaucrats speak loudly through the mere act of institutionalizing the education the student in the classroom is about to get.

This is why it is important to note that Socrates allow himself to be paid to teach and why it is important to note that in the allegory of the cave, the ones manipulating the shadows that keep the shackled slaves so entertained, they are the priests, the politicians, the paid teachers. Education, properly understood, is not an experience that takes place in a temple, a court of law, or a classroom.

In his post, Alex states: “By introducing modern technology and re-defining the way we design, build and educate in our universities, effective and necessary changes can be made.” There is a strong implication here that the grafting of these new teaching methods and technologies onto the existing university structure will introduce the kind of inquiry and exploration Socrates was capable of achieving. I would argue that Socrates was able to do what he did entirely by virtue of his independence from the structures of the state.

I suppose I will conclude by saying that the invocation of Socrates is, to say the least, problematic.

He does work rather well though as an example in that as you've pointed out, as a disruptor he probably would not have been engaged in today's University system. Instead we would have most likely found him behind one of the open source education movements or operating as a free lance educator.

The compelling part here, is that educators like Socrates exist today and are discovering new found power and reach through the web and its associated technologies. The question is, how can we improve upon the University system while leveraging the knowledge, passion and ability of our very own, modern Socrates.

It's been an exciting process. I've had the opportunity to work closely with a number of incredibly competent and experienced academics. The insights that my discussions with them have offered have been truly enlightening. By combining my experiences and insights as a millennial and their experiences and insights over long careers as educators I hope to garner unique insights into where we can take education in the next couple of years.

At a basic level Universities have already begun making investments in online education. They have to or they'll be bypassed. Equally, groups like Rio Salsa, University of Phoenix etc. have developed huge followings by serving the web based education niche. The catch is – the delivery mediums they're using are rudimentary at best. I'm working on a lot more than just an upgraded delivery platform, but in its barest form – there is already huge demand for a product that improves the online educational experience.