teachers are laborers, not merchants

I got an email request to talk about online-only education and why I’m such a skeptic that it can replace physical education. I’ve written about this before but let me try to sum it up.

Here’s the model that the constant “online education will replace physical colleges” types advance: education is about gaining knowledge; knowledge is stored in the heads of teachers; schooling is the transfer of that knowledge from the teacher’s head to the student’s head; physical facilities are expensive, but online equivalents are cheap; therefore someone will build an Amazon that cuts out the overhead of the physical campus and connects students to teachers in the online space or, alternatively, cuts teachers out altogether and just transfers the information straight into the brains of the student.

The basic failure here is the basic model of transfer of information, like teachers are merchants who sell discrete products known as knowledge or skills. In fact education is far more a matter of labor, of teachers working to push that information into the heads of students, or more accurately, to compel students to push it into their own heads. And this work is fundamentally social, and requires human accountability, particularly for those who lack prerequisite skills.

I’ve said this before: if education was really about access to information, then anyone with a library card could have skipped college well before the internet. The idea that the internet suddenly made education obsolete because it freed information from being hidden away presumes that information was kept under lock and key. But, you know, books exist and are pretty cheap and they contain information. Yet if you have a class of undergraduates sit in a room for an hour twice a week with some chemistry textbooks, I can tell you that most of them aren’t going to learn a lot of chemistry. The printing press did not make teachers obsolete, and neither has the internet.

Some of those undergrads might learn chemisty. There are small numbers of people in the world who are really self-motivated to learn. I sometimes get people who ask me if they should get into the Great Courses or similar services. And I tend to tell them, well, since you’re self-motivated and you want to learn and you’re willing to invest, sure. The problem is that most people just aren’t built that way. There’s a romantic vision of education that’s very common to reformers – everybody’s an autodidact, deep down inside. But the truth is, most students aren’t self-motivated. Most students learn only under compulsion from society. True, everyone has subjects that they love, but everyone also has subjects that they hate, and the basic premise of a curriculum is that individuals cannot determine for themselves exactly what they need to learn. Meanwhile, many or most students try to escape these obligations, to varying degrees. Truancy law exists for a reason, and even in the ostensibly-voluntary world of the university, most students do what they can to avoid work as much as possible. I’m just trying to be real with you. Most people skip school when they can.

This is particularly important because many of the challenges of the university today come from the fact that we’re educating more and more students who are nontraditional and less prepared than previous cohorts. From 2001 to 2011, total enrollments at American institutions grew by about a third. That’s a ton! And that growth was heavily concentrated among students who tend to be harder to educate – those from poorer backgrounds and those whose parents did not graduate from college. What we need to do, and what many schools are struggling to do, is to give these students the “soft skills” – time management, study habits, persistence, etc – that their peers typical get from middle-class-and-above, college-educated parents, who have the time and experience to inculcate such skills.

Unsurprisingly, what limited research there is suggests that MOOCs (which is only one piece of the online pie) tend to have horrid completion rates; most people aren’t likely to force themselves to log on and get the work done even when they’d prefer to be doing something else. Because online-only education is usually presented in terms of cost savings, it is perhaps most likely to be adopted by those very students who are least able to take advantage of it, particularly given that many of them work full-time and raise children. That sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

One dynamic at play here is that the schools with the money to really experiment with online education are those that have student bodies far outside the norm. I make this point all the time: the vast majority of American colleges are not at all selective. Out of the 3000+ accredited colleges and universities out there, perhaps 125 reject more applicants than they accept, by my estimates. A large majority accept almost any student that applies. It’s therefore hard to know how useful projects at, say, the University of Pennsylvania are for the far different task of educating the median student. The online college Minerva talks a great game about the fact that it is supposedly more exclusive than the Ivy League, which may well be true – but this simply means that it has little to tell us about how well its model would scale to the broader population, which is decidedly not like the population of the Ivy League. Meanwhile, while Harvard will permit its already-prepared students to take online courses, they’re not about to tear down the campus, nor will they or their students have any financial need for them to do so.

All of this presumes that there’s a clear advantage in inculcating meta-skills to old fashioned in-person education, and that’s an empirical question which has to be answered with careful empiricism. Anecdotally speaking, though, as a teacher it seems clear to me that there is a strong advantage in the human, one-to-one accountability of an in-person relationship. Teaching is about trust, mutual respect, and understanding; I have never felt that I developed those either as a teacher of an online class or as a student. Certainly, the fact that elementary school students who went to a (I can’t believe this exists) online-only “charter school” saw literally no academic growth hints at this. So does the fact that chronic absenteeism is such a hard hurdle for struggling college students to overcome, not only because they are missing out on in-class material but because they’re harder to motivate as a teacher. So do programs such as the University of Rhode Island’s Talent Development Program, which allows disadvantaged students who lack the typical academic profile to attend the university, on the condition that they consent to tutoring, grade checks and similar – that is, they are supported through more face-to-face contact hours and demands for accountability. So does Williams College research that shows that interaction time with professors is the single most important factor for developing deeper learning skills.

None of this makes online education useless. None of it means that we shouldn’t offer any such courses. I think some credit-earning online courses, in some disciplines, for some students, can supplement a traditional physical campus education. And there are many adults who could benefit from taking online courses designed for enrichment and skill building. The problem is that no one wants to talk about online education this way. They want to posit a revolution; they want to say that online-only will sweep away the physical university altogether. They tend, in my estimation, to do so for three reasons: one, they’re political conservatives who hate the university for its perceived progressive bias; two, they’re in the for-profit education sector and they want to make money selling online courses and materials; and three, they sell books by making sweeping proclamations and can’t advance more limited ideas like “a few online courses in a college career can be beneficial to students and teachers.”

Education is always getting disrupted, in the Silicon Valley mind. And though they dress it up in a million different ways, this disruption always functions the same way: by minimizing the teacher, the actual human being, whose job it is to inspire and direct and cajole and, yes, to drag students into competence. Either the teachers are replaced by an iPad or they’re forced to scale up the number of students they can teach by factors of hundreds or thousands through online technologies. One way or the other, the teacher is the problem the technology is designed to solve.

There is another way, which is to actually put our money where our mouth is, recognize that education is expensive, and that teachers themselves have value, and that mankind has cultivated human relationships of respect and guidance between teacher and student for millennia for good reason. I know a thing or two about a thing or two, and people pay me for that knowledge. But despite a culture of the autodidact, I know almost all of it because of great teaching, because teachers with patience and dedication had the time and resources to guide me to understanding. Teachers are not a problem to be solved; teachers are skilled laborers who should be well-compensated and respected.

But nobody ever made a fortune off of an IPO by doing that.

22 Comments

  1. “In fact education is far more a matter of labor, of teachers working to push that information into the heads of students, or more accurately, to compel students to push it into their own heads. ”

    This, to my eyes, seems like a really good argument *against* physical education. If students are so apathetic about the material they’re learning, why does the state need to waste—I mean, spend—scarce public revenues on building facilities, paying teachers and acquiring school materials for unintelligent/unmotivated students who would much rather be playing videogames and will quickly forget everything they “learn” anyway?

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink, as the old cliché goes. It seems to me that if a student is so indifferent to the material they have to learn that they can’t take advantage of the absolute cornucopia of no cost information at their disposal to do so, my tax dollars ought not to be spent compelling them to be miserable by constructing a prison of “learning.”

    Silicon Valley is definitely being naïve to expect that online education will make Einsteins out of poor students. But it’s equally naïve to expect expensive face to face education to produce much value over and above almost completely cost free online education.

    The economist Bryan Caplan is currently writing a book called “the Case Against Education” which will make these arguments with considerably greater sophistication and use of statistics. You should read it when it comes out.

    1. Well this is an awful comment – this poisonous attitude that ‘MY tax dollars are being wasted by the apathetic media gluttons (i.e. kids today)’ sounds petulant. How do you possibly see one of the most essential public services as a personal burden on you?

      Moreover, when is annihilating something that isn’t working properly ever the answer? Why don’t we focus on fixing literacy and numeracy, improve access to quality education, increase support for educators and actually realize that having a comprehensive and effective public education system is a MUST in order to produce a literate, informed citizenry that can think critically and (ultimately) make our patch of land a place worth living in.

      Being a teacher lost in the quagmire of part-time faculty positions (both in-class and online), and having worked in both public and private institutions, I can tell you that I have faced hordes of students who have LEARNED to hate a subject (especially anything involving reading and writing) from years of being failed by their institutions. In no way is this solved by online-only education – whatever the benefits are (and, as pointed out, there are benefits under certain circumstances), physical teaching is absolutely a craft that needs ubiquitous support.

      I have found that the majority of effective teaching does not actually involve the content – I count it as a true victory not when a student says that they found something interesting or learned something new (which is fantastic, don’t get me wrong), but when a student thanks for actually caring about them.

      And this isn’t just about inspiring an overall feeling of ‘value’, but of doing specific things: taking the time to help them improve their reading and writing skills (i.e. physically showing a skill, presenting opportunities to develop it, and providing actual feedback), showing them that I value their opinions as a thinking person, and giving them a confidence in their own eloquence after years of being fed a narrative about how they are academically substandard.

      The idea that this kind of work can be meaningfully done in an online classroom, where content is often rigidly set and enrollment is inflated, is absurd. The horse isn’t drinking water because of the very trends in education that are leading to the proliferation of massive open online courses as viable substitutes for in-class learning.

      1. Let me preface my comment by saying I have no beef with individual teachers, administrators, etc., who I think are about as competent, honest, intelligent, etc. on average as any large group of working Americans. My problem is with the wasteful, pointless, joyless system they function within.

        ” How do you possibly see one of the most essential public services as a personal burden on you?”

        I would dispute the idea that strangely popular idea that universal, mandatory, post-elementary (basic literacy and numeracy) education is “one of the most essential public services.” The *vast* majority of what the *vast* majority of students “learn” (history, literature, the natural sciences, art, etc.) past their ABCs and 123s has no practical relevance to them personally or society at large. Society would not collapse tomorrow if the only students who were required to study Shakespeare were students who genuinely enjoyed studying Shakespeare.

        I see it as a personal burden because I have much less choice in how much I want to contribute to our educational system than I do in how much I want to contribute to buying food for myself or donating to charity. It’s not just a burden on me, though; I’m sure (no offense to you personally) your students would rather being doing many things besides attending school given the choice.

        “Moreover, when is annihilating something that isn’t working properly ever the answer?”

        Um…almost always? If school isn’t currently worth the scarce resources we invest in it, the “answer” is to use those resources for something that is worth those resources.

        “Why don’t we focus on fixing literacy and numeracy, improve access to quality education, increase support for educators and actually realize that having a comprehensive and effective public education system is a MUST in order to produce a literate, informed citizenry that can think critically and (ultimately) make our patch of land a place worth living in.”

        Because the problem isn’t bad schools, it’s bad students. Not everyone is intelligent and/or motivated enough to acquire a hard science PhD; why do we assume that everyone is intelligent and/or motivated enough to get a high school diploma or college degree?

        Look, Benjamin Franklin only received an elementary education, grew up in a pre-library era and had to work full time as a child/teenager. By the time he was 18, he was capable of confidently discussing politics, natural science, philosophy, etc. with well educated adults as a result of his relentless self-education. Likewise, Srinivasa Ramanujan received a formal education far, far beneath his talents and had little knowledge of mainstream mathematical research, yet he independently made extraordinary progress in mastering mathematics.

        Ramanujan and Franklin had far, far, far less Educational Opportunity (TM) than the most disadvantaged “inner city” kid today, who can walk into a public library with orders of magnitude more information than earlier autodidacts could have accessed. The difference is that Ramanujan and Franklin were both extremely intelligent and extremely motivated. The main barrier to educational attainment today in industrial societies isn’t lack of Opportunity (TM), it’s lack of intelligence and/or motivation.

        “I have found that the majority of effective teaching does not actually involve the content – I count it as a true victory not when a student says that they found something interesting or learned something new (which is fantastic, don’t get me wrong), but when a student thanks for actually caring about them”

        If institutions designed to impart content are not successful at imparting content, they are not successful institutions. It really warms the cockles of my heart that students thank their teachers for caring about them (with the same frequency as they scream obscenities at them in some schools, no doubt), but uh, I’m not sure that counts as The Single Most Vital Thing Government Funds.

        “And this isn’t just about inspiring an overall feeling of ‘value’, but of doing specific things: taking the time to help them improve their reading and writing skills (i.e. physically showing a skill, presenting opportunities to develop it, and providing actual feedback), showing them that I value their opinions as a thinking person, and giving them a confidence in their own eloquence after years of being fed a narrative about how they are academically substandard.”

        In all likelihood, they are not “fed a narrative” of being academically substandard; they are actually academically substandard. This isn’t Lake Wobegon; half of all kids are going to be below average.

        “The idea that this kind of work can be meaningfully done in an online classroom, where content is often rigidly set and enrollment is inflated, is absurd. The horse isn’t drinking water because of the very trends in education that are leading to the proliferation of massive open online courses as viable substitutes for in-class learning.”

        Alright; but I don’t see what value this work produces in physical classrooms as to be worth the money it costs either. It seems like most schools function as weird combinations of daycare, prison and boring (to the students) television programming.

        Many, many students would be much better off if they spent half the time they waste in their teenage years in school/doing school work at introductory jobs/apprenticeships and the other half of the time just enjoying life however they see fit.

        1. Maybe I misunderstand something, but there seems to be the underlying assumption that a 14-year-old can and should be expected to know what education they need, and to make choices that would still determine their career options forty years later. That, however, is not how humans work.

          I might add that some institutions might function better if they weren’t constantly cut to the bone and beyond on behalf of people who consider a personal offense every tax dollar not spent for something directly and immediately benefiting themselves.

          1. “Maybe I misunderstand something, but there seems to be the underlying assumption that a 14-year-old can and should be expected to know what education they need, and to make choices that would still determine their career options forty years later. That, however, is not how humans work.”

            I don’t think 14 year olds are perfect decision makers, but I think they’re quite capable of figuring out what their interests and talents are. In my view, rather than the odd mishmash of useless and boring subjects (for most students) we currently mandate, we should have specialized curricula that better fit students’ real world needs and interests.

            “I might add that some institutions might function better if they weren’t constantly cut to the bone and beyond on behalf of people who consider a personal offense every tax dollar not spent for something directly and immediately benefiting themselves.”

            I swear, every cent of the Gross Domestic Product could be spent on education and some people would still say more funding is needed. No, education is not an expensive service to provide; public libraries and the internet have given anyone who actually wants and is intellectually capable of a good education ample resources. The problems with American educational institutions are 1) that they don’t use the precious resources (including time) that they’re given efficiently and 2) that they’re expected to create equal outcomes from unequal inputs.

            And I don’t mind education spending because it doesn’t benefit me; I mind it because it doesn’t seem to benefit anybody.

          2. I think they’re quite capable of figuring out what their interests and talents are

            We will have to agree to disagree. I appreciate that libertarian ideology kind of hinges on the idea that everybody is born fully independent and responsible, but no. It is empirically demonstrable that humans aren’t there yet at that age. Many a youngster who you would write off as, well, just not the kind who is interested in intellectual achievement, would look back ten years later, once the hormones have mellowed out, and regret that they weren’t supported when there was still time. And that is before mentioning poverty and parental education level as systematic factors.

            I swear, every cent of the Gross Domestic Product could be spent on education and some people would still say more funding is needed.

            We are rather far from that situation, both in the USA and in any country I have so far lived in. Nobody would realistically expect that outcomes will ever be equal for everybody, or that school can entirely make up for family problems. But I think you would find that having well-paid, well-respected, well-trained teachers, and enough of them per student, and with good equipment, can make a tremendous difference.

            No, education is not an expensive service to provide; public libraries and the internet have given anyone who actually wants and is intellectually capable of a good education ample resources.

            You may want to read again the original post, and perhaps my own comment further down. And ye gods, I can just about imagine what ‘knowledge’ some poor soul could arrive at if you plopped them down in the University of Google without any guidance, as their sole means of education…

  2. I teach a diverse group of students at a community college. I find what you write similar to what high school teachers write. The students don’t seem to learn without a period of relationship building which is usually ill-defined, yet must happen for education to take place. This is hard to describe and time consuming.

    Yet its so easy when the students are motivated! Somehow, all the other problems melt away. Lack of soft skills, poverty, lack of education in the family – none of it seems to matter when the students want to be there and want to get A’s.

    If you think of how we motivate young people to go school its kind of the opposite of everything we know about motivating young people. The sacrifices they are making, e.g. paying for school, are far in the future. The rewards for doing well in school are abstract, and far in the future. The rewards for screwing around while in school, e.g. frat parties, beer pong, etc. are immediate.

    Very often college represents a life style choice for a young person and not an academic choice. When someone is going to college because they like the life, e.g. where else will you find so many other single people your age?, its hard to motivate them to study. Likewise high school kids who are legally required to attend school.

    I tend to do badly with unmotivated students as my reaction is usually something like, “Oh, you don’t want to put in the work? Fine. Get out of the way and let me help someone else who actually wants to learn this stuff.” I have learned not to say things like this, but the attitude shows, I think.

  3. At the university level, I’ve always seen the professor as a tour guide. Say I want to learn a new subject. I go down to the library to look for an introductory textbook and I find two or three shelves of them. Which one do I pick? Let’s face it, lots of textbooks are uninspired dreck written by some assistant professor trying to pad her CV in order to make tenure. How do I separate the gems from the debris?

    The same holds for published research. Lots of scholarly papers are available online or at a public library, but which ones should I read? A good professor who knows her field can say “these are the seminal papers you have to know in your sleep, here’s a list of papers that you should be familiar with and here’s another list of papers you should read if you have time.”

    An independent learner can do some of that by consulting the syllabi for courses taught at good universities, but there is no substitute for interaction with a scholar who knows her field.

  4. We should always watch for what type of schooling elite folks pushing this stuff send their own children to. If they’re pushing MOOCs and Online Schools, but send their own kids to a program with small classes and close teacher-student interaction, it tells you something. That’s what Michelle Rhee did.

  5. “[I]f you have a class of undergraduates sit in a room for an hour twice a week with some chemistry textbooks, I can tell you that most of them aren’t going to learn a lot of chemistry.”

    Most undergraduate chemistry classes–in fact, most first- and second-year STEM classes in general–pretty much are “sit in a room for an hour twice a week with some textbooks”.

    ************

    The reason people thing of college in economic terms is that it is so often presented to us that way. “Degree holders earn 20% more per year”, “get a degree so you don’t have to work on some smelly loading dock and hate every minute of it”, so on. In that context, why shouldn’t we think of it as an investment?

    Conversely, if college is about Expanding The Mind and not any of that silly bullshit middle-class “earning money” crap, then maybe we shouldn’t be trying to get everyone in the country to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to go. Maybe an online syllabus and a discussion group is exactly the way to go about it.

  6. Thanks for this, online education is a fad but it is getting more and more clear that it’s ceiling is about what you say it is, an occasionally useful supplement. Administrators have not figured this out yet, though. I say this as someone who has done tons of online teaching, by the way.

  7. I found myself nodding rather vigorously throughout the piece, and then this:

    “The problem is that no one wants to talk about online education this way.”

    That’s simply not true. There are many, many university administrator and faculty members, nationally and internationally, who are trying to find a way to augment residential education with sensible online courses and programs. By sensible, I mean pedagogically and programmatically. For example, where a university has a strong school of the arts, pedagogically it makes no sense to put the sculpture program online, but there may be other programs within the school where expanding access to world-class art scholars via online learning makes sense.

    Again, that sort of thinking *is* happening all over. It just doesn’t get the attention of the MOOCsters, or the other self-proclaimed “disruptors.”

  8. Jane Jacobs describes a guardian vs commerce syndromes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival

    according to wikipedia:

    “Conflicts occur, according to Jacobs, when the precepts appropriate to one syndrome are applied to the other. This always generates problems. Furthermore, it is inevitable that problematic intermixing of the syndromes will occur over time, resulting in what she refers to as monstrous moral hybrids.”

  9. I’ve been one of those non-traditional students and I’ve taken online classes. Online learning can work really well to learn a new skill or with subjects that require lots of repetition to get the hang of it — a lot of the work that goes in to learning how to code, unsurprisingly, can be undertaken in a solitary environment by following written examples and taking lots of tests that gradually increase in difficulty. Underlying concepts in logic, not so much. For those, a knowledgeable teacher really helps.

    The widespread and free or cheap access to such a large and growing body of knowledge and instruction is exciting; it’s only when the usual suspects start pushing it as the latest trendy justification for breaking teacher’s unions and “privatizing” (i.e. killing) public education that it rankles. One can’t help but be reminded of the pie-in-the-sky promises from the early days of television that attending university lectures at a distance was bound to be one of the most popular uses of the new medium.

    Of course, if a person’s goal is to acquire a skill in order to secure employment, there’s an upsetting truth that many of academia’s staunchest defenders don’t like to talk about: the process of learning that skill, like the job itself, might be repetitive and not terribly exciting, and may not make you a more well-rounded person or better critical thinker. Training is not always enriching except in the most tediously literal sense. Learning how to operate an MRI ain’t the Dead Poet’s Society, but jobs for poets are scarce these days.

    1. “Learning how to operate an MRI ain’t the Dead Poet’s Society, but jobs for poets are scarce these days.”

      And it’s worth asking whether the knowledge and skill base required for a poet’s job is something children ought to pay a quarter of a million dollars to obtain.

      1. Of course, the entire structure of higher education was built in the assumption that education’s purpose is more than vocational.

        1. True Story: A good friend of mine teaches Philosophy as an adjunct (read: wildly underpaid, could be let go at any time) professor. He told me recently a student came to him and asked for advice pursuing Philosophy as a career path. He started to issue a bunch of caveats about how there aren’t many positions and how she might end up deep in debt and not much more employable. She interrupted: “I inherited a large sum of money.”
          “Oh!” he said. “Then by all means, pursue Philosophy! It’s extremely rewarding!”

  10. Whenever I read about online learning, my first thought is, how is this going to work for botanical field trips, chemistry and molecular biology practicals, or microscopy tutorials? The most logical conclusion appears to be that the proponents of an online education revolution come from humanities / economics backgrounds themselves and do not consider practicals and suchlike.

    Reading this, a second thought occurred to me, one that I had not had quite like that before. To the degree that I can judge it seems to me as if in the corporate world, where even a libertarian would presumably expect they do things the way they do them because they work, learning and up-skilling are generally done through face-to-face workshops and courses, and good, experienced course facilitators are highly valued.

    The exception are the cases of “you need this degree on paper so that we can officially move you to a higher level”, without an expectation that crucial additional skills are obtained, and making people aware of simple sets of rules or procedures. But if any companies or government research agencies, for example, prefer to do courses like Managing Mental Health in the Workplace or Advanced Project Management for their high level staff as online courses as opposed to face-to-face teaching by highly paid instructors in fancy conference rooms then I have yet to learn of that. Make of this observation what you will, but surely there is some reason behind it.

  11. I’ve been a fan of a modified version of Sugata Mitra’s School In The Cloud idea for a while now. Check out his TED talk to see him discuss it himself (https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud).

    Mitra’s best critics note the issues with having kids unsupervised (lack of motivation, a few kids dominating access and peer teaching often being highly discrimatory instead of inclusive). His solution to this is to use the “grandmother” model and have an encouraging adult present with the kids. The issue with his idea is that this adult is untrained and unpaid. The unpaid bit is just ridiculous so I won’t even address it (people who do jobs should be paid, duh). For training though I’d like to see teachers be experts not in the subject matter (which the computer software should be expert in) but in motivating and socializing children. This is already the case with many teachers but I think we should make it more explicit and use computers to make it work better. The Internet can allow us to centralize subject matter expertise in a small, but ridiculously smart group of experts who produce enaging lectures and course materials while allowing the vast majority of teachers to focus on the humanity of their students. This makes so much more sense to me than the idea that every chemistry teacher needs an undergrad chem degree, or that the thousands of algebra teachers in the country all need to come up with their own twist on the exact same set of lectures and then deliver them to multiple classes every day.

    1. There are several issues here, but the biggest one is this: despite constant claims to the contrary, the ability of software to teach is entirely unproven. The extant research is not encouraging. People talk about “adaptive” learning software all the time, but everything available seems incredibly rudimentary, despite constant claims that we’ve hit some new revolution. A teacher’s job is incredibly social, and social skills are what computers are the worst at. There’s still no computers that have demonstrated even a remote ability to think with the creativity and flexibility of a human being. And a computer can’t teach children to work under the supervision and authority of another human, which is an immensely important aspect of the workplace. Etc.

      Also, you know, my entire point is that teachers are not some inefficiency to be eliminated from education. Teachers are education. We should value teachers and be willing to pay for them rather than siphoning yet-more resources to Silicon Valley.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *