Stanford has begun using the flipped classroom model, an inversion of the conventional model where the instructor teaches at home through recorded videos, and has students do “homework” in the classroom.  The advantage of this is that professors can individually work with students in the classroom and students can collaborate in-person easily.

At Stanford, Professors have students watch the video versions of their lecture hosted on the website of Coursera, the Stanford Massive Open Online Course provider. Professors then devote what would have been lecture to interaction.

According to the Stanford Daily, the flipped courses have had mixed success.

In Stanford’s Computer Science 147: Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction, the professor instituted an incomplete, flipped classroom model, which received mixed reactions. In the words of one of the students, “time could have been better used.”

But other classes saw more success.

Professor Kristin Cobb M.S. ’99 Ph.D. ’02, taught HRP 213: Writing in the Sciences with Coursera last fall. She said, “Because writing is so hands on, to get the students to edit each other’s papers in class and make them write in class is a great use of class time.” The students reactions, as reported by the Daily, were favorable.

The question remains: should Harvard follow suit, using video components of the courses it offers through edX?

Harvard has partnered with MIT and four other universities in offering courses through edX. HarvardX courses include CS50x, Copyright, and Justice. For certain courses offered, it might well make sense.  Haven taken CS50, I testify to the dwindling lecture attendance.  What started as a packed lecture hall in September ended near-empty. Students chose to watch Professor Malan’s lectures through the CS50 course site, taking advantage of the ability to play back at 1.5x and 2.0x speeds.  Professor Malan’s time might be better spent organizing office hours during the day or coordinating focused problem solving sessions during the would-be lecture time.

What’s more, studies done on video lectures v. conventional support the efficacy of delivering content via video. They cite the benefits of the ability of students to pause and review concepts in real time and that time in class for application reinforces learning.

Harvard professors ought to evaluate whether their time lecturing is spent wisely. What really matters is that students master the material. In seminars, obviously the flipped classroom is harder to implement. But in larger lecture courses, in which it is easy to disengage and interactive video is easy to create, Harvard must ask itself some serious questions and ask itself whether it has done all it can to optimize education.

3D printing is going to revolutionize online shopping. Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos realizes that and probably envisions Amazon orchestrating the revolution. As a testament to how seriously Bezos takes 3D printing, Bezos, along with two other venture capital groups, helped MakerBot, a seller of consumer 3D printers and the accompanying necessary materials, raise $10 million.

3D printing operates like a 2D printer but adds another dimension out of the plane of the paper. It does so through repeated deposition of layers of a liquid plastic or melted metal ink. The technology has followed Moore’s Law, rapidly decreasing in cost.  Major companies, including General Electric, have proposed using 3D printing in manufacturing processes.  Additionally, smaller companies use 3D printing to produce niche products. Bespoke Innovations 3D prints artistic, custom prosthetics. It is even possible to print cell phone circuitry.

3D printing will link the virtual and physical world seamlessly.  Users will be able to download a Computer Animated Drawing (CAD) file and print the desired product in their home, or maybe print the product at a regional center kitted with more heavy duty printers capable of printing more complicated objects. 3D printing will also diversify suppliers, as it will require less infrastructure and investment to begin a company if product design is entirely virtual.  Therefore, it will be possible for many niche companies to compete with Amazon. Amazon is well positioned to take advantage of 3D printing, but it also stands to lose out if it does not stay ahead of the curve.

But there are several ways Bezos and his company can anticipate and lead the change in 3D printing.

The first step would probably be to buy up companies such as Shapeways which are already allowing users to upload designs and customers to then print these designs. Amazon can also create in-house 3D printing and tools on its site to embellish conventional products using its in-house 3D printing.  It is unlikely that most adults will have the necessary skills, the time, and interest to design complex products. Amazon can offer the easy alternative: offer customizable products. By acquiring companies and hiring in-house designers, Amazon can head off the inevitable diversity of suppliers and instead establish itself as a marketplace for different users to upload their designs, as Shapeways already does.

So my advice: buy stock in Amazon.  Not only did its CEO redefine the book industry; he is also heavily involved in the privatized space industry.  When it comes to 3D printing, which has been hailed the next trillion dollar industry, I would not be surprised if Bezos has already pounced.

There’s been much said about the restructuring of the Harvard University Library system recently. Most campus debate and media coverage has focused on the administration’s plans to reduce the size of the library workforce. Of course, the university has a responsibility to reach a sustainable solution with its workers. However, we should not let these negotiations overshadow the benefits and possibilities of a modernized library system.

With this transition process, Harvard has the opportunity to serve as an example of what a 21st century library should be. Indeed, this process could uniquely position Harvard to contribute to a much greater project: the creation of America’s first digital public library. Read More…

Juncture is a joint project between the HPR and the Harvard College Tech Review dedicated to the highest quality writing at the intersection of government and technology.

——————————————————————————

Cryptography once helped the United States win World War II and the Cold War, but today it could be preventing us from accessing important troves of data like Osama bin Laden’s hard drives.

In 1940, William Friedman and his team cracked Japan’s PURPLE system. During subsequent decades, the secretive National Security Agency, or NSA, led the Soviet Union in making and breaking codes. But after the so-called “crypto wars” of the 1990s, the U.S., under pressure from privacy advocates and others, allowed the use of strong cryptography for commercial purposes, effectively ending the NSA’s monopoly.

Last year, American special forces found bin Laden’s hard drives in his compound. Read More…

In the recently released film The Hunger Games, the government, controlled by “The Capitol,” uses intimidation and constant surveillance to prevent rebellion against the dystopian order of the country Panem. Starving and impoverished citizens live in perpetual fear that the “Peacekeepers” (think Mussolini’s Black Shirts) will execute them for hunting game or speaking out against the government. The government “knows” what the citizens are doing, and it stifles any trace of dissent without a second thought. Anonymity simply does not exist in this society, and this preserves “stability,” albeit at a hefty cost.

Now meet Daniel Brady. Born in Knoxville, Tennessee, on June 19, 1992, he graduated last year from Fulton High School and now studies engineering at Stanford (although he was admitted to Harvard on March 30, 2011). His hobbies include playing table tennis and cheering on the Tennessee Titans. His favorite television shows are South Park and House, and his favorite movies are Avatar and Inception. He enjoys listening to One Republic and Coldplay, and he is fluent in German and Mandarin. He recently attended the Key Society Convention in Woodland, Calif., and this past weekend, he walked in the March for Dimes. On Thursday, he will be at Stanford’s Toyon Hall eating Ramen noodles with his close friends.

I have never met Daniel; in fact, I did not even know he existed before I began writing this article. Yet, I would argue that it’s likely I know more about him than some of his high school peers do. Daniel’s name and interests have been changed to protect his identity, but he is a real person. The only connection I share with him is a single mutual friend on Facebook. Read More…

On November 26, 2011, an American drone flew over the hilly Pakistani border after successfully hitting its target. The result: 24 Pakistani soldiers lay dead, and 13 civilians were injured. This dramatic incident was no anomaly. The United States has engaged in drone warfare in Pakistan for almost a decade, killing over 2300 militants and at least 500 civilians according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or drones, are used to fly in conditions deemed unsuitable or unsafe for humans.

However, is this impersonal method of killing immoral? While drone warfare is no more damaging than conventional warfare, the psychological effects it could have on drone pilots and the virtually unchecked power the President has to conduct military strikes without Congressional approval are extremely worrying.
Read More…

HR 2306: “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011”

HR 2306 is a rare example of bipartisan collaboration in a particularly divided Congress. Congressmen Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.), both prominent members of their respective parties, are cosponsors.  But the fact that the bill tackles a seemingly untouchable issue, federal marijuana regulation, is even more interesting.

During the previous two Congresses, Frank introduced legislation curbing federal enforcement of marijuana usage laws.  Both times, the bills had bipartisan support, but never made it beyond committee, and its latest incarnation will likely meet that same fate.  Since its introduction last June, HR 2306 has been recommended to both the House Judiciary and the Energy and Commerce Committees, but neither has acted.
Read More…

With the dust now settling after Congress went toe-to-toe with the Internet and lost, it’s a good opportunity to assess the wreckage. The majority of said dust was kicked up by the protest blackouts and obscured the issue that Congress was trying to address in the first place: internet piracy. Internet piracy is, by and large, something that major media companies complain about, and something that our generation has done its best to socialize as far less sinister than the “stealing” that the media companies brand it as.

Let me be clear, I sympathize with the pro-piracy crowd (or are they anti-stopping-piracy? Or anti-“censorship”? Is this the reverse of the anti-life vs. anti-choice conundrum?) I find the prospect of having to pay for content that could be free intensely annoying. To think, the only thing standing between me and watching the new Katherine Heigl movie for free is the greed of some multinational corporation! I’ll try not to consider the possibility that my desire to avoid parting with my own hard-earned cash is fundamentally similar to the desire of an artist to be paid for their work.
Read More…