Miguel & Will Both Know the Answer

Recent posts from Miguel and Will are not connected to one another, but the answer to their questions is the same. Here are quotes from their posts.

From Miguel who states he "doesn't get" all the Web 2.0, School 2.0, etc. and yet understands the importance of us changing:

What I do get is this: Those granite-rock, plodding, myopic institutions we call schools restrict our creativity. Any effort to reform, to modify, to adapt, these institutions to what needs to be, to what already is, fails. Actually, it's a foul lie. We can't get there from here. Somehow, we want to jump the gap holding on to all our curriculum guides, 3-ring binders, policies and procedures, quaint ways of interacting and meeting and making decisions. But all that must go. We just have to let it go. Let it go. Let it go!

Then...

Oh. Another question pops into my head. As an educator, I want to work somewhere where people have let go of fear. To get there, will I have to let go of my steady job? Let go of what passes for traditional career? Let go of...well, you get the idea. After all, the only way to fly with the eagles IS to let go of the branch and FLY.

And from Will who provides his insight to the University of Michigan's new graduate degree in Social Networking.

So, does anyone else find this a little ironic? I mean how in the world would this particular degree “certify” anyone as a social computing specialist any better than, um, spending a year or so just actually becoming a part of social learning network, learning from the various teachers and conversations within it, and building a rich, online portfolio that illustrates your ability to be an online community manager, social network analyst, community organizer or any of the other descriptions they list as possible outcomes? For, um, zero dollars?

The answer to Miguel's question, though admittedly cynical, is because of money. Miguel states that the "steady job" is something he likely would have to give up to pursue the "well, you get the idea." Not many of us can afford to do that. The risk of economic loss is too great. Chris Lehman is not starting schools everywhere :^) And I am not aware of other schools who are willing to let go of the 3-ring binders and jump the gap. I would submit that most schools are unaware there is a gap that needs jumping.

The answer to Will's question, though admittedly cynical, is because of money. Will is an inspiration to many of us. He has done (and continues to do) what many of us would like to be able to do. Although I would really like to see him in the classroom again someday. He is an example of a life-long learner, and he has advocated this for his own children. There is a ring of truth to what Will suggests, that spending a year immersed in social networks will likely provide a better education than the classroom. This has been my experience. However, I do not get a pay raise based on my skills or knowledge in the educational arena. I get a pay raise based on obtaining higher degrees. This is the way it works in education.

Perhaps it is not fair. Perhaps we should be paid based on our attained skills. Perhaps, well, you get the idea. We do not make the jump unless we have some way to ensure our lifestyle is maintained. We get the higher degree, even though we may not learn anything new, because we can increase our income to improve our lifestyle.

I know money is not the end-all, be-all of existence. I know the love of money is the root of all evil. I know money can't buy me love. But I also know the lack of money ain't much fun either.