Port 80

Last week, I received a broadcast e-mail from the UD administration calling for student input on a
“Strategic Academic Plan” for the future of UD. The request is for a one page proposal, outlining input
for a follow-on plan to the current Vision 2005 plan. Of course,
as an unorthodox student who enjoys doing things the hard way, I had to go and write up a proposal. The final
draft is due on Monday, but I’m going to put up a rough d raft here for comments. The basic subject matter of the
paper (interdisciplinary learning) isn’t going to change, but if you have any ideas on implementation, specifics,
points I left out, or just wording, send them to me. Thanks in advance to
anyone who reads through this.

In Vision 2005, the University declared that it would undertake a “bold
transformation” which included a strong emphasis on “Connected Learning and Scholarship”. The
University’s drive towards connected learning is being re alized in such projects as the New Engineer Program and the
Learning Village concept (particularly the ArtStreet project). With these and other projects underway, the
University’s strategic vision must look beyond the completion of these projects, and re cognize that the original
reasons for implementing the Connected Learning strategy are still as valid as they were when Vision 2005 was
developed. Rather than envisioning the Connected Learning initiative as the final solution to these challenges, the
University must view this initiative as the beginning of a larger shift towards a more integrated educational
philosophy. One of the primary concerns of the University in implementing the new strategic academic plan must be to
plan the follow-on strategy to Connected Learning, one that takes the successes of Connected Learning and expands
upon it.

The first step of this strategy must be to review the successes and failures of current Connected Learning
programs in order to apply the most successful practices of these programs on a large scale. One excellent example
is the New Engineer program, which currently involves a small segment of the engineering students at the University
of Dayton. It may be desirable to implement some of the strategies of this program (such as case studies of notable
engineering projects) across the entire engineering curriculum.

However, it is vital that the University continue to address the challenges that spurred the Connected Learning
initiative by moving forward from a strategy of Connected Learning to a strategy of Integrated Learning. The
existing Connected Learning progr ams will be vital as a testbed for new and innovative projects that will seek not
only to connect different disciplines on a foundational level, as does the current general education program, but to
truly integrate different disciplines, striving to forge links between them at advanced levels of study. This new
program should be attempt to be both pervasive and flexible. The program should be pervasive in
that links between disciplines are forged in many courses, instead of a select ed few “interdisciplinary”
classes. Likewise, the program should be flexible in that talented and enthusiastic students are encouraged
to work with faculty to develop new and innovative programs of study which still uphold the high sta ndard of
education that the University maintains.

The University must strive in the coming years to solidify and expand upon current successes, and to innovate for
the future. By producing graduates who can successfully integrate knowledge between disciplines, the University
produces graduates who can serve their communities in dealing with new and unforeseen challenges and
opportunities.

Regards,
Zachary Heaton

Again, if you have any comments, e-mail away.

One student laid it wide open when she said with complete candor, “Of course you can’t
eliminate the degree and grading system. After all, that’s what we’re here for.” - Robert Pirsig, Zen and
the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance

This weekend, I got the chance to read through In Code: A Young Woman’s Mathematical Journey. The book is the autobiographical story of Sarah Flannery, an Irish secondary school student who won international acclaim (and the 1999 Young Scientist Award) for her research into public key cryptography. After more than a year of research, she devised a cryptographic system that was substantially faster than the standard RSA method. Although the system eventually proved vulnerable to attack, her research was impressive, to say the least.

Throughout the entire book, Flannery remains professionally modest, giving credit to those who inspired her and downplaying her own abilities:

I have no doubt that I am not a genius. I am not being falsely modest. Through my father’s classes I have seen examples of true genius, and I know that I do not possess that “insight” that distinguishes geniuses from those regarded as merely intelligent.

Sarah Flannery, In Code, page 243

This modesty and lack of pretension stands in sharp contrast to another book I read this weekend, namely Stupid White Men by Michael Moore. Although Moore is clearly a man of intelligence, he is certainly not a man of modesty. (In fact, intellectual honestly isn’t one of Moore’s strong points, either.) Throughout Stupid White Men, Moore portrays himself as unmasking conspiracies that involve countless parties, including, but not limited to:

• The Bush family
• Haliburton and Enron
• Florida election commissions
• The Miami Herald
• The United States Supreme Court
• The entire Republican party
• Most of the Democratic party (for knuckling under to Republicans)
• The entire Caucasian race (except for Michael Moore)

At first glance, this list appears to be the work of a delusional paranoid, not an Oscar-winning director. If one switches races and political parties in the above list, one could accurately describe a member of the Aryan Nation or the Klu Klux Klan. Is Moore really this vitriolic, biased, or simply out of touch with reality?

(more…)

After putting a counter on this page yesterday and realizing that it was loaded within a day by three people who didn’t happen to be me, I feel vaguely obligated to place some new content here, if only for those three individuals who came to this page despite the fact that this page doesn’t appear in the search results from Google yet. Fortunately, I happen to have an item I came across which I felt deserved to be posted.

Thanks to Slashdot, I have just come across a piece from Paul Graham entitled “Why Nerds Are Unpopular”. It’s actually not just an analysis of “nerds”, but a fairly well-thought out perspective on the origin of the social dynamics that occur from junior high through the end of high school. It’s an interesting read - I highly recommend it if you have some time. It’s certainly not the standard perspective you will hear coming from an entrenched educational institution.

Of course, it is also possible that this page was visited three times by search robots. In that case, I hope they have the good sense to note the above link. Mr. Graham deserves an aftershock of Slashdotting for writing such a well-thought out piece.