I have done some research, and I’ve seen other countries’ packages where the line speed is like 10Mb/s… and that is one of the slowest speeds!! I have read that in some countries, broadband internet is a basic human right!! What have we been doing in South Africa that has caused this lag in technological progress?

The factors I could think of were: a monopoly on fixed line telecommunications and incorrect government expenditure. I mean, yes let’s spend money building stadiums for the world cup so that SA can have sustained future income, but if we are going to spend so much on education shouldn’t we ensure that we have the technology and resources to facilitate and aid this cause?

SA is renowned for its crime. Surely, the prisons are almost at capacity? I once read somewhere that in order to solve SA’s current [about 6 years ago] housing problems, 200 houses will have to be built everyday for the next 20 years!! Maybe, instead of building more prisons, we should appoint people to supervise community service (thus providing employment) and have prisoners undergo training to perform tasks such as building houses (for habitat for humanity or something). I’m sure SOMEONE out there will realise the importance of this and will provide training for free. This will provide houses for the homeless.

I hope that is just food for thought. I know that there is no specific topic, and that the aim of the blog shifted rapidly, but that’s just what I think. Plus, this was written in about 10 minutes because the computer lab at university is closing.

UPDATE
Just realized that that was saved as a draft on 25 August 2010… I now have ADSL (1024 Kbps)…
Also, the fastest Internet available is now 10 Mbps)…

Essay:

Wikipedia is referred to as the online encyclopaedia. It is a resource which publicly publishes information on the internet. They do not charge anyone to use their site and they allow most information to be edited by any member the public. This ploy – of allowing any member of the public to edit their information – has resulted in the information being accused of inaccuracy and as a result the information has been labelled unreliable. Due to this students are often told that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source of information.

This has sparked controversy surrounding the authenticity of Wikipedia’s information. The debate surrounding this controversy is whether the information has been uploaded by professionals and people with specialist knowledge, or whether it was uploaded by a junior school student in some remote part of the world. However, the counter-argument is that in order to upload information to Wikipedia there are various requirements that are to be met. These include: the information must be confirmed by three separate persons and there must be proper citations or references for the information being uploaded. Surely these implications will result in legitimate information? These issues will be considered in this essay in order to determine the advantages or disadvantages of using Wikipedia as a source of information and how it could be appropriately and responsibly used in a university context.

The first topic that will be discussed is about the view expressed in the articles. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view – it is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. This results in their articles having multiple points of view with no single ‘true’ view. This means that when students research a topic by referring to Wikipedia, they are subject to various points of view, allowing them to visualize multiple views and they can utilize these to formulate a view of their own. This is definitely a merit of using Wikipedia. In addition, the multiple views cause students to think carefully about each point of view and hence reason through them in order to find one that they are inclined to agree with.

The downside of this is what is termed: “information overload”. Because there are such a variety of views, the students may suffer from information overload and may skim to the view which they agree with, a form of confirmation bias. Students may simply use the find function, “Ctrl-F”, to identify the view corresponding to their own and may then use the Wikipedia page as a reference to substantiate their findings. However, this may be interpreted as a lack of understanding because if the marker of the assignment evaluates the reference, he/she may find that the Wikipedia page actually substantiates why this view is incorrect, which is not the desired outcome for the student.

Another advantage of using Wikipedia is that it contains information which is almost always up-to-date. This is due to the continuous updates provided by users. Wikipedia is updated in real-time. Contrast this with conventional encyclopaedias which were only published periodically and therefore the contained information was also only periodically updated. In this way, Wikipedia can be of better use to a student.

For example, consider a student who is researching the contents of an atom. If he/she were to use a conventional encyclopaedia, they may find: ‘The atom contains three particles, namely the proton, the neutron (these two particles are collectively called nucleon and are contained in the nucleus of an atom, making up the majority of the atomic mass) and the electron, which orbits around the nucleus”, whereas if the student were to use Wikipedia he/she may find the following information: “the atom consists of sub-particles. These are called: protons, neutrons, quarks, positrons, and recent research suggests that there may be another particle (which has been given the name ‘God’s particle’) and is believed to make up the bulk of the mass of an atom”. Consider the impact of this on a thesis or research project.

A disadvantage of Wikipedia that may arise is that of vandals. Users may deliberately vandalise the information on the website, motivated by some notion. Luckily, Wikipedia has enforced what is known as a three-revert rule. Because the Wikipedia database is stored, if false information is posted or information is vandalised, other users can notify Wikipedia, providing the correct information and they will either correct the information or restore the page to its original form. There must be at least three such notifications in order for Wikipedia to restore that page to its original state. This attempts to ensure the integrity of the information, in other words it helps prevent the incorrect information uploaded by vandals to be changed by different vandals to information which is still incorrect. This is the reasoning behind the three different confirmations. Errors contained on Wikipedia can be corrected quickly because it is continuously updated, whereas errors in conventional encyclopaedias are only corrected when the next edition is published. This can cause errors in the information used by students, causing their assignment or topic being researched to be out-dated, and their findings may not be relevant anymore. This is problematic, especially if you are being sponsored to write an essay or report.

Wikipedia attempts to be as accurate as possible. Consider the page on George W. Bush. This page has been locked and cannot be edited. This was done so by Wikipedia because users were expressing personal beliefs as opposed to sticking to the facts. This resulted in inaccurate information which was rectified by Wikipedia. If they are aware of these major inaccuracies and rectify them, we cannot accuse Wikipedia of being completely inaccurate.

When users upload information or update information on a specific topic, they are required to provide references. This enables other users to check that the information has been translated and interpreted correctly and to ensure that no generalisations were made based on the original source. This also provides useful information to students wishing to use the information. At the bottom of almost every Wikipedia page there are three additional sections: Further Reading, Notes/References and External Links. Under ‘Further Reading’ users may upload the names of different sources which may provide a more in-depth view of the subject or may complement the information provided. Footnotes are contained under the ‘References’ (sometimes called ‘Notes’) section. This provides the exact location of any information used directly from other sources. This can be useful to a student who may wish to know more on a specific element of the information contained. Under the ‘External Links’ section, there are various sources listed from which information was used. This can provide a strong foundation for a student’s research.

Therefore, given that Wikipedia is more up-to-date than conventional encyclopaedias Wikipedia can be used in a university context to confirm whether facts and information is still applicable or whether they have changed. Additionally, since Wikipedia has external links at the bottom of their pages, a university student can utilise these links in order to find more information on a topic. A student can also utilise the various views displayed on each topic in order to find relevant information for and against their view or idea. Therefore, Wikipedia can be very useful in a university context.

In conclusion, I believe that using Wikipedia does not go unmerited however it does not go without its share of pitfalls and should therefore not be used as a primary source of reference. I believe that Wikipedia should be used as a secondary source of reference in order to confirm the validity of information that may be aged.

Websites like http://ratemyprofessors.com/ allow students to rate their lecturers, and to post anonymous comments on the quality of teaching they receive. Sites such as these appear to encourage students to regard themselves as “customers” of their universities.

Do you regard yourself as a customer of UCT? Explain why other students should agree with your position, and also argue for or against the implementation of a ratings site for South African universities/lecturers.

Essay:

There has been debate around the issue of whether students are to be regarded as customers of a university, with a primary concern being whether the label of students as “customers” would lead to the degradation of the role of the student, as education becomes an act of consumption as opposed to a growing and learning process (Wright 2007). Despite this concern, I believe that I am indeed a customer of the University of Cape Town (“UCT”).  This view will be substantiated through the consideration of issues such as the provision of payment in exchange for a service and the quality control checks implemented by a service or goods provider.

The first premise that should be considered when determining if a student is a customer of a university is that customers receive a good or service in exchange for some form of payment, whether that form be monetary or in the form of alternative goods or services.

For example, consider an arrangement between two farmers. Suppose Farmer A wanted to purchase some cattle from Farmer B. Farmer B can stipulate whether payment from Farmer A is to be in cash (monetary), in exchange for chickens (exchanging goods) or he/she could stipulate that Farmer A must plough his/her (Farmer B’s) fields for them. Quite clearly, Farmer B is supplying a good or service to Farmer A. Therefore, Farmer A is the customer. It is also evident that Farmer A is providing some form of payment to Farmer B.

The above is illustrative of the relationship between myself (or any other UCT student) and UCT. This therefore highlights the second premise, which is that students at UCT receive a service from the university in exchange for payment in the form of annual fees, either by the students or on behalf of the students.

It may be debated that payment on behalf of the students does not qualify them as the recipients of the service, because the people who are paying the annual fees are the true recipients of the service. The general view that the service is received by the payer, and that the university educating the students for the payer as a component of this service is incorrect, as it is argued that the students receiving the education are the recipients of the service (the course) not the payer. This may be substantiated with reference to the following example.

Suppose a person purchased a motor vehicle from a dealer. Now, assume that this person does not have the necessary money available and hence, takes out a loan. The bank from where the loan was issued then pays the dealer the required amount and the person receives the car. It is obvious that the person who wanted to buy the car is the recipient of the good even though the bank has paid on his/her behalf. This person also had an intention of putting this good to some use, whereas the bank did not. This enforces the view that the person is the recipient, not the bank.

Yet another premise that may be presented is that some organisations ask its customers to provide feedback to improve the quality of the service or the goods provided. This is evident by the evaluation forms that are often distributed to account holders or purchasers of products. This is also apparent by the telephone numbers provided at most good or service providers. These are often labeled as a telephone number to which ‘complaints/queries’ can be directed. These complaints or queries are generally used to improve the quality of goods or services. The data collected from the complaints are used to improve the quality of the good or service and the queries are used to enable the organisation to provide or distribute more information about the product.

For example, a business places the following advertisement in the local newspaper: “Buckets For Sale: Prices from R 50.00”. Now assume that complainant A purchases three R50 buckets. On his receipt is a telephone number to which he may direct complaints or queries. To complainant A’s shock, all three buckets leak about twenty percent of their contents. He phones the hotline and complains to the business. Following this, new buckets are produced, which are able to retain their contents. Thus, the good is improved.

Now consider a customer, Query A. She desires to purchase one of these buckets but is uncertain whether they supply the size that she requires. She then phones the business in order to query what sizes the buckets come in. They tell her 10 litres, 20 litres and 30 litres. She then asks the cost of each, to which they say R50, R60 and R70 respectively. She thanks them and puts the phone down. The business now forwards her queries to the complaints/queries department. The next week, the business places a new advertisement in the local newspaper which reads: “Buckets For Sale: Improved Design! Available in three sizes: 10 litres – R50, 20 litres – R60, and 30 litres – R70”. This clearly shows how the business collaborates with its customers to innovate effectively and improve the quality of the good or service provided.

The fourth premise to be presented is that at the University of Cape Town and some other educational institutions, course and lecturer evaluation forms are to be completed by the students, which are used to improve the quality and delivery of the course. The questions proposed on the course evaluation forms include, inter alia, the following: “How can the course be improved? Was the textbook a useful resource? How would you rate this course in comparison to the other courses offered at this institution? What class of mark do you expect to receive for this course?” These questions are clearly aimed at the students in order to improve the administration of the course, in other words, use the data collected to make the course more informative in order to answer similar questions that may arise in the future.

With regard to the lecturer evaluation form, the questions are used to improve the quality at which the course is delivered. The questions contained on this document are similar to the following: “Were the lectures pitched at the correct level? Was the lecturer well prepared for his/her lectures? Did the lecturer make seemingly difficult concepts easy to understand?” Clearly, if the lecturer did not pitch his/her lecture at the correct level, the course was not delivered satisfactorily and in order to better deliver the course, the lecturer should be notified so that he/she can rectify this.

These forms clearly show that universities, such as the University of Cape Town, are keen to collaborate with students in order to improve the delivery of courses. Also, the fact that councils such as the Commerce Students Council (where you can complain about the courses offered in the commerce faculty) are sanctioned, demonstrates how keen the University of Cape Town is to collaborate with students and improve their courses.

Therefore, since customers receive a good or service in exchange for some form of payment and students receive a service from the University of Cape Town in exchange for payment by the students or on behalf of the students, the students of the University of Cape Town are treated as customers. In addition, organisations ask their customers for feedback in order to improve the provision and quality of goods and services and the University of Cape Town offers course and lecturer evaluation forms in order to improve the quality of the courses, it holds that the students of the University of Cape Town are indeed treated as customers.

The reasons why fellow students should agree are mentioned above, by the four premises leading up to my claim. Some sources mention that students are to be seen as products (Laskey 1998). This is incorrect because treating students as commodities that are to be supplied to employers or society would result in the ultimate goal of education being to see as many students pass through the university as possible, instead of ensuring that they receive a sound and thorough education in their chosen fields of study.

With regard to the fourth premise, some people argue that lecturer evaluations should not be allowed because they are too harsh or demeaning to the lecturers. This is a valid point, however it should be noted that this is a method for improving the standard, quality and administration of the course. If the lecturer is not doing his/her job well, students may not be able to comprehend the work at hand. For example, if student A attended an economics lecture, and the lecturer started speaking about how bright the stars were the previous night instead of lecturing the students on exchange rates which was in an upcoming test, the students have a right to complain because someone is paying their course fees on behalf of them or they are paying it themselves in order to receive a service which is not being performed satisfactorily. Therefore, the service should be improved and the students’ satisfaction should be priority and the lecturer should adjust his/her lectures to be more relevant and useful.

However, one does not think that these evaluations should be publicly displayed, but rather privately owned by the respective faculties. This is because lecturers have the right to privacy and confidentiality because students may begin targeting them. Therefore, lecturer evaluation forms should be utilised, however, if lecturer-rating sites are permitted, there should be private access to the site and the results or data collected from the site should not be publicly displayed or posted, but rather retained for the use of the faculty.

In conclusion, students of the University of Cape Town are customers of the university because the students match the model of a customer and the university treats them as customers, and since I am a student, I believe that I am a customer of the University of Cape Town. In addition, rating sites should be utilised but must be privately owned and run by the faculties of the university and the results collected should not be publicly displayed.

References:

Bayfield, R 2007, Are students customers? Retrieved 16 August 2008 from http://blogs.edgehill.ac.uk/next_to_the_circle/2007/03/11/are-students-customers/

Wright, P 2007, No title, Mister Roy’s Musings >> Are students customers? discussion list Retrieved 16 August 2008 from http://blogs.edgehill.ac.uk/next_to_the_circle/2007/03/11/are-students-customers/

Laskey, KB 1998, Are Students Our Customers in the Education Marketplace? Retrieved 16 August 2008 from http://www.gmu.edu/news/gazette/9811/studcus.html

Walsch, D 1998, The Student as Customer: Other Points of View Retrieved 16 August 2008 from http://www.gmu.edu/news/gazette/9811/studcus2.html

Vaill, P 2000, Beware the Idea of the Student as a Customer: A Dissenting View Retrieved 16 August 2008 from http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rsleeth/NotCustomers.html

Sutherland, J 2003, Marking Time Retrieved 16 August 2008 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/mar/13/highereducation.internationaleducationnews