This is from firstmonday which I used to read abit when I was in "library school".
The author notes the following points:
Where he agrees on the topic of digital diploma mills:
- Technology is used as a means of social control (e.g., there is a division between those who are pro-technology as a new mechanism for teaching and those who feel that teaching is best served in a traditional setting) As he points out, change is neither good nor bad and does have the ability to breed conflict.
Where he disagrees on the topic of digital diploma mills:
- The author disagrees on many points of the digital dipolma mills discussion including research into the effectiveness of online teacher, the impact of technology on student performance (critics point to a reduction), it is intrinisically inferior, students do not want it, and that it can never replicate a true teacher/student relationship.
In the remaining part of the article, the author addresses these points and also delivers this stinging commentary, " ...Noble appears to have made it his business not to know much about information technologies."
Frankly, I found both articles very biased, although I did feel the bias was not as pointed in the first article, "Digital Dipolma Mills". In addition to the followup/rebuttal article being personal and subjective, it seemed to be a little too heavy on the "you should believe me because I am an expert" and "do not listen to that man over there because he doesn't even read his email so how could he know anything about online technology?"