The One Laptop per Child scheme is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of the IT industry, according to Tony Roberts, chief executive and founder of UK charity Computer Aid International. Speaking to ZDNet UK last week, Roberts claimed that although he would be delighted if the OLPC scheme proved a success, he had severe reservations about the strategy underpinning the project.
Giving a laptop to a starving poverty stricken child is no help.
They should put that money in two areas which use the technology.Agriculture and Education.
there are african nations that are not plagued by famine and/or war.
by giving kids there a introduction into computing, they will better understand what the tools can do
i recall hearing about a project where they placed some rugged computers as special booths in poor urbanized areas of india.
the kids where the first to pick up what they technology could do, and teached themselfs and each other by trial and error.
computer have become a kind of language. and kids have allways been quicker to learn, and use, languages.
sure, thats a double-edged sword, as they may not allways understand the full impact of the language they use
this is kinda like handing every kid in usa or the european nations a commodore and let them play around with it back in the days. sure, most will stop at the games. but some will rise up and start developing solutions. solutions unique to their enviroment.
there are storys about how the mobile phone is changing the economic structure of some 3. world nations. for one thing it allows fishers and farmers to call ahead to check the prices at diffrent markets.
now lets say we give them, thru these computers and their kids, the ability to look up better farming metodes. or maybe how to repair some farming tool that a aid agency dumped on them.
give a person a fish and he not go hungry for a day, teach him to fish and he will never go hungry again
basicly, the combo of a cheap computer and a mobile phone network can jumpstart the rural areas into the information age. and information is power
give a person a fish and he not go hungry for a day, teach him to fish and he will never go hungry again
provided he lives close to a good source of fish. Not much benefit in teaching Andean Peruvians to fish…
Once upon a time in the west I worked on something called appropriate technology, which was the idea that you introduced the most appropriate technology into an area that could be sustained within the existing constraints of local condition.
I’m guessing the OLPC one-size-fits-all folk aren’t familiar with that concept.
Jeez, don’t you people know how to READ? Please, document yourself before spewing nonsense.
It’s evident you don’t have the foggiest idea of what concepts the OLPC people are familiar with. ¿Whatever makes you think they are one-size-fits-all folk? ¿Where did you read that the starving children of places such as Burkina Fasso are the target for this initiative?
There is clearly more world out there than you fathom.
Read.
Please, document yourself before spewing nonsense.
Feel free to take your own advice.
Whatever makes you think they are one-size-fits-all folk?
Recall for me, if you will, what the O in OLPC stands for… But the proper answer to your question is I read their web site. It’s myopic, it only proposes one solution to the problem they preceive (you remember, the laptop) and it doesn’t contain any disclaimer that I could find that they were only targeting certain countries and deliberately not targeting others.
Where did you read that the starving children of places such as Burkina Fasso are the target for this initiative?
Speaking of reading and/or spewing nonsense: where have I claimed that Burkina Faso was a target?
But since you asked where I learned things, why don’t you take a look at the map at http://www.laptop.org/map.en_US.html and tell me about some of the countries on it. Like, say, for instance, that one sticking out of the eastern side of Africa there just below Yemen. You know, the one whose capital is Mogadishu.
And then, why don’t you calm down, and check your facts before you go ranting at people who, unlike yourself, have taken the time to become informed on the topic.
It is not one-size-fits-all even if the name starts with an “O” because the contents will vary, and because the conditions are not appropriate for its deployment in every country.
As for Burkina Fasso, it is an EXAMPLE, because somebody said:
> Giving a laptop to a starving poverty stricken child is no help.
Which, in case you don’t understand my reasoning, is true but silly, because giving laptops to starving poverty stricken children IS NOT WHAT’S BEING TALKED ABOUT.
And what about Somalia? It seems that somebody *there* is *trying to get aprovement* from the government. I don’t predict a big success.
Maybe you should check your facts too. And clean your glasses.
Which, in case you don’t understand my reasoning, is true but silly, because giving laptops to starving poverty stricken children IS NOT WHAT’S BEING TALKED ABOUT.
Actually, giving laptops to children at all is not being talked about. OLPC intends to give the laptops to governments to hand out. Their faq cites that as a partial explanation for how they’ll hold costs down.
And what about Somalia? It seems that somebody *there* is *trying to get aprovement* from the government. I don’t predict a big success.
Whether they succede or not, the fact is that they’re dealing with the OLPC foundation and that if they do succeed, the OLPC will gladly hand them the laptops.
Maybe you should check your facts too. And clean your glasses.
Hmm… Yes, my glasses are dirty. But my facts are directly from the OLPC web site, unlike most of the claims of people asserting that they’re only dealing with second world countries.
It’s an inconvenient fact that OLPC is already dealing with third world countries that have starving children. This is inconveniently inconsistent with assertions made on this forum but nowhere made by the OLPC that they are only planning on dealing with 2nd world countries.
interesting to what part of the post you clamp down on.
allso interesting to see how people have voted on the diffrent posts…
the line above is a proverb, its not supposed to be read literal. its a way of saying that by teaching someone to be help themselfs, they dont have to rely on someone else for food or similar.
the OLPC is a way of handing out about a truckload of books to each child. and children is the future of any community.
but lets give the proejct a chance before its shut down for good. let they hand out a number of these devices in one of the more stable nations, and then see how it works out.
but lets give the proejct a chance before its shut down for good. let they hand out a number of these devices in one of the more stable nations, and then see how it works out.
We already, in the US, have a history of handing out free computer resources for educational purposes. It’s well documented. People who study it say that there are much better ways to improve education, even in the first world.
Yes, I’m aware that ‘teach a man to fish’ is a proverb. I was trying to highlight the fact that ‘to fish’ doesn’t meant the same thing in every environment. You see, unlike ‘to fish’, ‘one laptop’ isn’t a proverb, they really mean it. In their plan there is no substituting ‘to herd llamas’ for the Peruvians.
Why the determination to find some aspect of the OLPC project to be morally indignant about?
Why the determination to find some aspect of the OLPC project to be morally indignant about?
You’d have to ask someone who is morally indignant about it.
I’m merely pointing out that there are more effective ways to spend that kind of money if your goal is to improve educational opportunities for children.
“I’m merely pointing out that there are more effective ways to spend that kind of money if your goal is to improve educational opportunities for children.”
I’m sure there are, but let’s hear your suggestions first!
I personally don’t have any, but I’ve mentioned two already that are commonly agreed to by educators: improving nutrition and improving teaching skills.
Perhaps it should be the OLPT (T == teacher) programme, but then there appear to be massive challenges facing Africa, particularly in terms of demographics, where teacher availability doesn’t seem likely to improve in the near future. Giving children their own learning tools and materials sounds like a desperate measure, but it actually may be the most realistic. I defer to the development experts who are presumably advising the OLPC people on this.
Meanwhile, on the nutrition issue, everyone can agree that better nutrition is necessary for large parts of the planet, but that problem is arguably approached at numerous different levels. Merely converting the $100 to food aid wouldn’t be an adequate measure, for example; fair trade and responsible behaviour from the major economic powers are also necessary, and are arguably much more important than some dollar amount.
I suppose the OLPC people are just trying to make a difference in an area where they feel they can. Persuading the US and EU to play fair requires action on a whole different level.
Sigh.
There are tons of places in the world that have reasonable sources of water & food, but limited oppurtunities for education. OLPC is targeted at those. And there is no doubt a computer would be beneficial.
Looks like a bunch already beat me to it.
Edited 2006-06-21 01:05
Why does this come up again and again?
Where the f*** did you people get the idea that starving, poverty stricken child are the target?
I guess it could be the result of occidental, narrow-minded, media-managed, ignorant minds speaking.
Well, tho these I will say this: The world outside your doorstep is a lot more complex that the stick-figure picture you’ve built in your disinformation. I’ll try to paint it as a stick figure too, to improve comprehension.
We are rich. We are the FIRST world. We represent, say, 10% of the worlds population.
In too many places in the planet, poverty stricken children die every minute. They are the THIRD world. They represent, say, 50% of the world’s population (I’m making this figures up)
The astute will notice something is missing: YES, IT’S THE SECOND WORLD! Places not as rich as ours, where they are past the famine stage (or on the way out), and where the problems are others. They eat, they go to school, they’ve got basic medical attention, they work in factories, they don’t have much money. They make up 40% of the world’s population.
These people represent 4 times as many people as there are in first world countries, and the OLPC initiative would work FINE in many of those countries, freeing their relatively poor education system of the burden of printing books, aiding their teachers with educational programs to improve reading and math skills, opening a view to the world of information and reality via the internet or some such.
OLPC won’t save third world countries from famine and AIDS, but will help a very sizeable slice of the world’s population improve their lives.
These people represent 4 times as many people as there are in first world countries, and the OLPC initiative would work FINE in many of those countries, freeing their relatively poor education system of the burden of printing books, aiding their teachers with educational programs to improve reading and math skills, opening a view to the world of information and reality via the internet or some such.
I’ve addressed this point, but you seem to be too busy ranting to care too much about facts, so i’ll repeat myself (and add a new tidbit)
First, the new bit. There’s no ‘internet’ in the OLPC plan. The most they’re aiming at is local mesh networks.
Second, the old bit: All of the educational research I’m familiar with suggests that the least effective way to improve education is to spend money on computers. Even something as simple as nutrition programs tend to have a bigger improvement for a smaller investment. And before you go ranting about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world, note that the documented most effective US federal program for improving education in K-12 has been the school lunch program.
Finally, the other bit: OLPC ain’t giving away any educational software.
If you want to understand how bad an idea OLPC is nearly anywhere in Africa or South America, I suggest you find a documentary series from the ’80s called “The Africans” by Dr. Ali Mazrui. (see below) It has rather strong things to say about inappropriate donation of technology and the impact it has had on Africa.
There’s a reason why I spent part of my life working on appropriate technology, and that series does a good job of explaining it.
EDIT: Added blurb on the documentary:
THE AFRICANS: A TRIPLE HERITAGE–Dr. Ali Mazrui is the host and writer of this highly acclaimed nine part series which examines the complexities of a continent influenced by its indigenous roots, Islam and European Christianity and culture. This series was produced by WETA and the BBC in association with the Nigerian Television Authority. For more information, see its web page at the site of The Annenberg/CPB Collection or at PBS OnLine.
Edited 2006-06-21 08:58
The 80’s? So it is already out of date about present day Africa.
On the negative side of Africa, I bet it has little on the impact of AIDs in the poorer countries. On the positive side of Africa bet you don’t see poor Africans in the movie with cells phones that connect them to the entire planet.
The point, many problems in Africa are the same as back then, but in the last 25 years there have also been a large number of changes – Africa is a moving target.
The documentary covers more than a thousand years of history and does a very good job of explaining the context of present day Africa.
The point: the reason why ideas like OLPC are bad in the current day is very well explained by Mazrui.
Second, the old bit: All of the educational research I’m familiar with suggests that the least effective way to improve education is to spend money on computers. Even something as simple as nutrition programs tend to have a bigger improvement for a smaller investment. And before you go ranting about 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world, note that the documented most effective US federal program for improving education in K-12 has been the school lunch program.
I have to disagree with these points because computers do help people in countries such as Brazil and Venezuela. Nutritions are not the problem but the inability to have modern tools for education.
Finally, the other bit: OLPC ain’t giving away any educational software.
How do you know given the fact there are no information about softwares chosen for the OLPC yet although it may likely to be open source?
If you want to understand how bad an idea OLPC is nearly anywhere in Africa or South America, I suggest you find a documentary series from the ’80s called “The Africans” by Dr. Ali Mazrui. (see below) It has rather strong things to say about inappropriate donation of technology and the impact it has had on Africa.
So you use an old documentary to refer the actual situation in South America and Africa? That only shows how outdated your knowledge about these continents is.
The people I met coming from these continents (Brazil, DR Congo, Venezuela, Ghana) have a tremendous knowledge about computers despite the lack of tool. There are other point I can refute but that’s mostly policital so I avoid to discuss here.
I have to disagree with these points because computers do help people in countries such as Brazil and Venezuela. Nutritions are not the problem but the inability to have modern tools for education.
If nutrition helps improve the performance of K-12 institutions in the US(!!) why wont it help in Brazil and Venezuela?
Nutrition is already taken care by the government which is especially true for Venezuela. It is nice to provide food but it is better to also provide tools necessary to produce foods in long term through education. They are other details I won’t discuss because it will be completely off-topic and might cause political debate that I wish to avoid.
Edited 2006-06-21 16:32
Finally, the other bit: OLPC ain’t giving away any educational software.
How do you know given the fact there are no information about softwares chosen for the OLPC yet although it may likely to be open source?
Because the software that was being described is not available in open source now. Because one of the “features” of OLPC is that it has a small amount of storage so there isn’t room for the software if it was available.
So you use an old documentary to refer the actual situation in South America and Africa? That only shows how outdated your knowledge about these continents is.
It’s funny how many people who have never seen the documentary are dismissing it out of hand.
But no, it doesn’t show that at all. It shows that I’m aware of a 20 year old documentary that accurately describes the reason why OLPC would be a bad thing, even in modern Africa. I’m aware of the last 20 years, and I even know how well they can be explained by Mazrui’s analysis. That’s why I pointed the documentary out.
But then, why would you want to learn from the past?
The OLPC has a “relatively” small amount of storage. Multimedia flights of fantasy wrapping a tiny point in hours of video and audio will not fit. Other things will.
It has 500mb of flash. “Other things” will be a thinned down Linux distro, a small amount of space for the user, and very little else.
> First, the new bit. There’s no ‘internet’ in the OLPC
> plan. The most they’re aiming at is local mesh networks.
That’s why I said “via the Internet OR SOME SUCH”
Second: the OLPC is not a “computer”; it is an educational device intended tu substitute schoolbooks and paper and provide educational applications. The point is not giving a Microsoft Office clone to every starving child in the world, but teaching them reading and writing skills as well as general culture, while lightening the burden on the educational system of their countries.
Finally: you say they ain’t giving away any educational software. I say they are. As for the appropriateness of technology, the fact that it is inappropriate for Congo or does not mean that it is inappropriate for Egypt, Lybia, Tunice, or Morocco.
And yes, you have not mentioned Congo. I do know how to read. Do you know the meaning of the word “example”?
As for the documentary you quote, I’ll try to find it and watch it and, though I’m sure it is interesting, I’m also sure that its words are certainly not the very words of God cast in stone.
Edited 2006-06-22 07:38
Second: the OLPC is not a “computer”; it is an educational device intended tu substitute schoolbooks and paper and provide educational applications.
I’ve addressed that already, several times. It’s not an educational device, as OLPC intends to deliver it. It’s a laptop. With very minimal software. You have read their literature, haven’t you?
Finally: you say they ain’t giving away any educational software. I say they are.
Actually, they say they aren’t. The device is only going to have 500mb of flash. How much educational software do you think you can fit in there, even with a thinned-down Linux distribution, and still leave any room at all for the user’s data?
I’m also sure that its words are certainly not the very words of God cast in stone.
Of course they’re not. They’re the expert opinion of one man who has made a career of studying Africa, and they contain information pertainent to this discussion, but Mazrui may have made mistakes.
Speaking of mistakes, given that I pointed out from the OLPC site that the do intend to deal with the third world and not just the second, why do you keep pushing the assertion that they don’t?
(Congo, which you admit is not an appropriate target, is interested in participating in the program…)
“The real reason that this won’t be successful is a misunderstanding of the history of technology. They are looking to introduce a non-standard, untested platform… which they will only sell to governments,” he said. “The decision to buy will be made by politicians who are elected every five years, and politicians generally don’t take the decision to risk their political future on non-standard technology.”
Kickbacks are a big part of the way that business gets done in the Third World. If you’re a greedy politician, who are you going to go with: the $100 laptop or the more expensive laptop from the vendor who promises to kickback potentially millions of dollars?
Similarly, it’s my opinion that a lot of the people that these machines are being targeted at … are simply going to sell them. After all, $100 is a lot of money in some of these countries.
not like the “developed” nations are any better about kickbacks. its just not so up front…
Sell them to whom?
Who would both have $100 to spend on a bright orange underpowered education oriented notebook and be willing to buy one from J. Random Teenager in Angola? Why would they do such a thing?
That article mentions that the price range for the laptop will be closer to $135 to $140.
If they change the currency to the Euro they can still get away with calling it the $100 laptop
The laptop isn’t for starving children. It’s for children in developing nations that have access to food and water, but not to computers. This has been repeated over and over again…
I’m a little surprised to hear that you don’t see the education potential in this. To me it’s pretty obvious.
The laptop isn’t for starving children. It’s for children in developing nations that have access to food and water, but not to computers. This has been repeated over and over again…
This statement has been repeated over and over in this forum. Would someone care to point me at the OLCP site’s literature where they substantiate the claim, because everything I’ve been able to find there makes no such observation.
I’m a little surprised to hear that you don’t see the education potential in this. To me it’s pretty obvious.
I certainly don’t. Or more precisely, I’m aware of significantly better ways to spend $100 / child in a country like Nigeria, where 60% of the population lives in poverty, on enducation. Almost every study I’ve ever seen on the topic rank computer capital expenditure as one of the least effective educational expenditures, while in areas where poverty is high and per-capita income is low, the equivalent expenditure on in-class nutrition has a far more dramatic impact.
G-O-O-G-L-E
Nigeria is not in the plans. Brazil, Argentina, China, India are.
Wisen up or shut up
Nigeria is not in the plans. Brazil, Argentina, China, India are.
http://english.people.com.cn/200511/25/eng20051125_223849.html
Someone had better tell Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo that. He plans to spend a 100 million US dollars on OLPC laptops.
Wisen up or shut up
You’re new around here, aren’t you?
Take Brazil, for instance. A very small minority actually starves, but only about 40% of the population can buy a desktop, and probably only the top 5-10% could afford a laptop.
Education in Brazil doesn’t usually include developing computer skills, specially in poorer parts of the country, but a good percentage of jobs expects you to be able to use one.
And $100 in food or education wouldn’t go very far… certainly wouldn’t last more than 3 months.
[]s Gus
Kickbacks are a big part of the way that business gets done in the Third World. If you’re a greedy politician, who are you going to go with: the $100 laptop or the more expensive laptop from the vendor who promises to kickback potentially millions of dollars?
That doesn’t make any sense if you’re going to give the laptops to children. You’d just lose more money with the second option.
By the way, corruption is as much a problem in the “first world” as it is in developing countries. Consider the way Microsoft donates to politicians who then vote laws to favor it (or pressure the DOJ into slapping the convicted monopolist on the wrist instead of really punishing them).
Maybe the project won’t work, but taking a pessimistic approach at this time is quite premature, IMO.
By the way, corruption is as much a problem in the “first world” as it is in developing countries.
The first world’s idea of corruption pales in comparison to developing countries.
what we need to know is who is paying this guy. If it is microsoft we already know what standard plataform he is talking about.
I would guess that these computers are not targeted at the people who are also really short on the basics (which a 100$ laptop is anything but) but those who already have food & medical care & shelter .
Well I guess this is also an issue where lots of lack of knowledge will be fact .
As in e.g. who is developed enough to get these systems in the first place ? – might be a question – its like these food program things – Ive heard about – yes heard – corruption is a big problem – & in maybe some cases it would just not be “worth” it because these machines would only end up anywhere but in children’s capable hands .. hmmm corruption & politicians .
I cant tell you anything about the “developing” world & how it functions & doesnt function .
In Western eyes this “”every child a pretty computer to be all smart & furfill their dreams & show what they are capable off” is of course – especially !!! – to politicians a very nice looking idea .
I havent seen any hard calculations of the hardware costs & how this 100$ computer will be distributed exactly .
I dont see the “non-standard technology” thing a direct issue – with politics in this case – I guess – the symbolic value is of great value to put themselves in a good light etc to get money & votes .
Its not I guess a matter of will this computer run MS Office ? – but if it looks as though some politician in whatever country is doing something for his people .
Id guess that its a UN & all these different countries thing – that these politicians would be quite high level – as in e.g. presidents – which Id guess – certainly would benefit for themselves in doing something for their people & their image towards other countries .
How this program is perveived in all these different countries ? – no idea .
I think until now there has been a severe lack of specifics of implementation .
Does this guy know anything we dont ?
Id like spedifics of implementation .
It could maybe work or maybe be wasting money bigscale .
Just my highly uninformed opinion .
I don’t see what’s so non-standard about the OLPC machine. I think he means mainstream (as others have pointed out, meaning “not Windows.”) POSIX is as standard as it gets, and Linux offers a lot of outlets for learning networking and programming. It’ll probably come with a word processor and spreadsheet, so data manipulation / mathematics and typing / literacy are covered, too. That’s quite a head start, as I see it. And if someone writes something nifty in C or Java on one of these things, it’ll run just as well on more mainstream hardware.
I don’t see this as anyone misunderstanding the IT industry. The only misunderstanding is thinking this global charity has anything to do with an industry.
The low-end Palms cost $100 retail, they’re far more portable, and they come loaded with useful software. In addition, one can do some pretty serious things on a Palm.
I don’t oppose this program per se, but I do think people are applying the wrong paradigm.
NB: I don’t own a Palm (currently) or work for them.
Palm’s don’t do mesh networking. Neither do ordinary PCs.
I see the OLPC device as an electronic book that can network with other books, without needing any central point of control. Books where adding local content is dirt cheap.
People who have power now hate the whole idea of OLPC because these devices are highly subversive, and that’s why the project is on the right track. Educated people are harder to control, and OLPC is a tool for education. Authoritarians like central control over education, but devices like this will put power into the hands of the teacher. Authoritarians like to control publication and communications, but devices like this enable anyone to publish, and bypass corrupt telcos by communicating with each other directly.
Yes, there’s interesting technology in there. But far more interesting is how that technology is designed to give people more freedom, more control over their own lives. Look past the technology to the social, economic, and political effects that OLPC devices may have. That’s the big story.
Textbook. Newspaper. Samizdat. Doesn’t depend on the power grid, or phone grid, or radio/TV. Totally peer-to-peer, not provider/consumer. Routes around bribery. Subversive as hell, and just what the world needs.
You can’t do programming for Palm-pilots using a Palm-pilot.
You can’t download software other than by plugging it into another computer (or infra to another palm), which they probably don’t have.
You can’t enter large quantities of data on a palm-pilot.
For kids, standard palm-pilot software is close to useless. Any education software provided?
You mostly HAVE to program Palm-pilots using C. Ever tried JVM-based software???
Even if kids become Windows users, most of the skills they acquire using Linux will be transferable. Palm-pilots run on very different metaphors.
Palm-pilots are a dying market.
The first world’s idea of corruption pales in comparison to developing countries.
I disagree. It’s more flagrant, more prevalent and certainly less sophisticated in developing countries than in the first world, but the sums of money involved are much, much larger in the latter. It kind of evens out, I guess…
1,000 $100 laptops followed shortly by 1,000 offshored jobs.
Mod me down and let the flames begin!!!
Any job that could be done using a OLPC device left long, long ago.
The guy is jealous because the OPLC project attracts to much attention from other (his charity .org) projects.That’s sick.
Yes, that’s never to be underestimated.
It’s quite incredible to read all the ignorant comments published here.
Why don’t you go to Google and search, you know what that is don’t you?, for the OLPC project?
Fight your own Ignorance. Document yourselfes before posting stupid things!
I can definitely understand that there are differences of opinion on the effectiveness of spending money on computers for children in the developing world. That’s a worthy debate (IMHO). What is harder to understand is why people are debating the stated mission of the OLPC project when it is clearly stated on their webpage:
“It should be mentioned that a common criticism of the project is to say, “What poor people need is food and shelter, not laptops.” This comment, however, is ignorant of conditions in improvished nations around the world. While it is true there are many people in the world who definitely need food and shelter, there are multitudes of people who live in rural or sub-urban areas and have plenty to eat and reasonable accommodations. What these people don’t have is a decent shot at a good education.”
HINT (try the OLPC FAQ: “Isn’t this project just a techno-Utopian dream? A band aid when more serious surgery needs to be done?”
“It should be mentioned that a common criticism of the project is to say, “What poor people need is food and shelter, not laptops.” This comment, however, is ignorant of conditions in improvished nations around the world. While it is true there are many people in the world who definitely need food and shelter, there are multitudes of people who live in rural or sub-urban areas and have plenty to eat and reasonable accommodations. What these people don’t have is a decent shot at a good education.”
That’s great, as far as it goes. So lets do the math. We go to a poor suburban area that has 100,000 kids, ten per square mile, in an area of 10,000 square miles (to simplify, a square 100 miles on a side). One of these babies for each child equates to an expenditure of $10 million, or $1000 per square mile. That’s a lot of money in a third world nation. Suppose instead I decided to build computer centers and provide internet. Obviously 1 computer center wouldn’t be enough to serve the entire area, but I’ve got $10 million to do it, so I can build quite a few. Let’s say $10,000 per center.
Computers are about $500 each, and a concrete building would cost perhaps $5000 to build (labor is cheap in these parts). So a building with 5 computers would cost $7500, with $2500 left for stringing network and power cables between them all.
So that’s 1000 centers, each serving 10 square miles and 1000 children. On average, each child would be 1.5 miles away from a computer center, and I bet you could do even better than that as the children won’t be distributed evenly over the area.
You might complain “but that’s only 1 PC per 20 children”. Yep, that’s right. Do you imagine that all children need access to a computer 24/7? Even American kids take a break, and most of their computer access is not related to education. Also, kids differ. Some might not be interested at all, some might be extremely interested. Some might go later in the day and spend hours of offpeak time programming, or learning english. Some might get bored with their first class and never come back. Some might have parents who think there are more important things that computers.
Note also that we spent $500 on each computer. This will provide a modern computer capable of running most any software – all existing educational software, development environments, language learning programs. Try this on your $100 laptop.
If computers are the solution, there are much more efficient means of bringing them to the masses. Whether or not computers are the solution is an entirely different debate. Personally I’d rather spend the $10 million on providing a clean water supply and healthy food.
Well, that infrastructure is already flourishing and has a sustainable business model in many developing parts of the world, in the form of internet cafés and pay-per-use – which I guess is fine for email & chat, web, gaming and simple multimedia.
But such solutions do not really foster other aspects like ebook-reading, writing & creativity, education & science, business or programming which IMHO requires interaction with a computer on your own terms, at your own pace.
And I can think of many many usages for a computer you can take outside, especially in countries where people rely and interact with their local natural resources much more on a daily basis. A laptop could hold lots on information on the flora and fauna of the area making it possible to identify useful species and pests. With some simple USB-addons they could use the laptop to measure chemical properties of water and soil in the field. Of course, doing such things in class requires well educated teachers as well, but at least the technical barrier is a bit lower than before. Then of course its a nice tool to simply practise writing, singing, math and what have you.
One of the main points with the project is that with access to and familiarity with technology the soon-to-be-productive-adults of these countries will have a good idea themselves on how to monitor and control water and food quality.
By the way, I found this very cute gif-animation made by a Swede (I think) which I think encapsulates the whole project: http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1701/togetherviacomputers8sx.gif
Could people be arguing with the ‘stated goals’ because they’re self contradictory? Whie the FAQ mentions that there are people who don’t have a decent shot at an education, it doesn’t mention two things:
1) It is well documented that handing someone computer equipment is the least effective way to spend money on improving their education
and
2) The OLPC FAQ doesn’t actually say that OLPC is going to concentrate on those areas. The OLPC map, on the other hand, shows that countries which have resource problems and insufficient food are interested in diverting funds to OLPC purchases.
The word that comes to mind here, with respect to the OLPC FAQ, is disingenuous.
1) It is well documented that handing someone computer equipment is the least effective way to spend money on improving their education
…unless computer education is what you’re aiming for. What better way to learn about computers than acutally having one?
“1) It is well documented that handing someone computer equipment is the least effective way to spend money on improving their education”
…unless computer education is what you’re aiming for. What better way to learn about computers than acutally having one?
But that’s not the OLPC stated goal. Here’s what the OLPC says they’re for: They are a wonderful way for all children to learn learning through independent interaction and exploration. (emphasis theirs)
There are very many far more effective ways to “learn learning” that can be made available to children than a laptop.
But that’s not the OLPC stated goal.
Is that really important, though? Once the kids have those laptops, they’ll be the one figuring out how to use them.
I also don’t believe that you have to “learn” learning. Every living being learns, it’s necessary for survival.
Mind you I can understand (and deeply respect) your skepticism, I just think you’re too pessimistic with regards to the impact this project will have.
I also don’t believe that you have to “learn” learning. Every living being learns, it’s necessary for survival.
Learning is a skill, and like any skill can be improved by being learned. The difference between what is necessary for survival and what is necessary for understanding quantum mechanics definitely requires a lot of learning how to learn.
Learning is a skill, and like any skill can be improved by being learned.
I disagree. Learning is an aptitude, and it can be facilitated (by environmental as well as internal factors), but it’s not a skill in itself. In any case, that would be a good example of circular logic if it was, wouldn’t it? 🙂
Another example of why “learning” isn’t a skill is that kids actually learn faster than adults. It’s much easier for a kid to learn a language than it is for an adult.
The difference between what is necessary for survival and what is necessary for understanding quantum mechanics definitely requires a lot of learning how to learn.
Not really. It just require tools to facilitate that learning, and motivation to do so. Survival is a good motivation, but so is getting out of poverty.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that, in science at least, you need to learn basics before learning specifics, but that in itself doesn’t mean you have to “learn to learn.”
And even then that’s not an absolute. You can understand the principles of Quantum Mechanics without having to learn university-level physics. Scientific facts are usually pretty easy to explain and understand (if sometimes hard to visualize, as is the case with quantum theory). The real hard part is coming up with the scientific proof that leads to those facts…
Edited 2006-06-22 22:21
Another example of why “learning” isn’t a skill is that kids actually learn faster than adults. It’s much easier for a kid to learn a language than it is for an adult.
That’s a myth. People think it’s easier for kids to learn languages than adults because they don’t remember how much work they put into it as kids.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that, in science at least, you need to learn basics before learning specifics
That’s another one. If you study how people learn science you’ll find that, starting young, they move back and forth. The “basics” need a context to fit in, and the context comes from specific examples.
You can understand the principles of Quantum Mechanics without having to learn university-level physics.
Depends on what you mean by “understand”, of course. There are many levels of understanding. That said, you can’t understand QM at the university-level w/o the university-level education.
The article does not seem to be raising valid points to me, rather it seems more to try and justify supportting no changes to the business he is presently involved in.
——————————————————
Claim – computers set in schools not being used because children think they belong to the government.
Hello – Unless you are talking a private school, just about everything in a school belongs to the local government. Do you remember using the computers at school? Do any of you remember refusing to use them because they are not yours? Ha!
——————————————————
Non-standard, untested platform –
Linux is non-standard? For that matter what standard really is needed? If less than 1% of the population own and use computers then whatever design/OS gets into wide spread use becomes the standard. Not to mention, remember when we had about half-a-dozen diffirent standards (Commodore, Atari, Apple, CPM, Microsoft and others) I don’t remember a lack of program delevopment then either, what does his idea of a standard have to do with anything?
—————————————————–
Politicians who are elected every five years –
??? Seem he thinks all African countries are run like Britain.
——————————————————
Failed because the children did not see the computers as their own, and as a result did not engage with them as expected. –
Well problem solved, the OLPC will be given to the children.
——————————————————
‘We just gave a hundred thousand PCs to schools, and they are still sitting in their boxes.’ –
Well what do they expect, they were probably all Windows with printed English manuals. What are a bunch of kids who don’t speak English going to do with them? OLPC will ship with a far easyier to use OS, and all the docs on the drive so even if it is in English you can try translation software (poor results yes, but better than just printed English manuals.)
—————————————————–
“Computer Aid has just celebrated shipping its 70,000 PC to the developing world. The organisation, founded in 1998” –
And the OLPC program is looking to in the long run the shipping in the order of millions of units, does that have anything to do with the sour grapes in the following quote.
“there were so many exciting projects that didn’t get any attention because all eyes were on the OLPC,”
Reads like sour grapes to me.
“But Roberts, who as well as heading up Computer Aid”…
Kind of explains it all, doesn’t it? The head of an organization calls the competitor a failure.
This statement has been repeated over and over in this forum. Would someone care to point me at the OLCP site’s literature where they substantiate the claim, because everything I’ve been able to find there makes no such observation.
You’re presenting this as an either/or situation, while in reality it isn’t. In other words, it’s not “we’ll provide them food/water related aid OR computers”, but rather “we’ll provide them with computers IN ADDITION to the normal aid they are set to receive.
The fact is that, in many of the countries on the list targeted by the OLPC project, basic necessities like food and water are met for a large portion of the population.
Look at it this way: lots of kids go hungry in developed nations as well…does that mean that kids shouldn’t have access to computers?
I certainly don’t.
You don’t see, say, access to Wikipedia as a significant educational tool? How about the ability to distribute textbooks electronically instead of having to use outdated hardcopies?
Or more precisely, I’m aware of significantly better ways to spend $100 / child in a country like Nigeria, where 60% of the population lives in poverty, on enducation. Almost every study I’ve ever seen on the topic rank computer capital expenditure as one of the least effective educational expenditures, while in areas where poverty is high and per-capita income is low, the equivalent expenditure on in-class nutrition has a far more dramatic impact.
Of course, but again you’re taking an either/or approach. I see this program as complementary to other aid programs. The difference is that this program (contrary to a lot of food-related aid program) is a lot harder to game for corrupt politicians.
If it only helps to give a generation of kids in the third world a better understanding of the world they live in, then it’s worth it.
First, the new bit. There’s no ‘internet’ in the OLPC plan. The most they’re aiming at is local mesh networks.
Are you certain about this? Do you mean it will not be designed for Internet access, or simply that there’s no plan in OLPC to set up Internet access points?
My understanding it that if an OPLC has an internet access point it is possible for it to share it’s bandwidth over the mesh network so other computers on the same mesh.
Beside remember BBSs, while access was only local if you did not want to pay long distance charges many local groups were using them to gain access to local resources. Both the local libraries (Oshawa, Whitby) and the local college (Durham) carried a lot of information on thier BBSs.
And the near by city (Toronto) had writting groups, educational aid, teachers, art groups and others all meeting and exchanging infos just on local BBSs.
And let us not forget FIDONet that made it possible to send messages and have discussion groups that spanned the whole of North America without any charges to the users.
All that is also possible once there are enough computers supoorting the Mesh.
Are you certain about this? Do you mean it will not be designed for Internet access, or simply that there’s no plan in OLPC to set up Internet access points?
There’s no plan in OLPC to set up access points or to pay for the infrastructure or to pay for access to existing points.
This by the way is an example of Mazrui’s criticism of some first world techical aid to Africa that makes his documentary relevant to this discussion.
Since the 60s, if not longer, African nations have been the recipients of one-shot technology infusions that require large infrastructure investments that either aren’t in the budget or that are set up in a way to require that they be done by first world companies, making African nations even more dependent.
While I doubt that OLPC has the later goal in mind, it clearly suffers from the myopia of the first problem.
Oh, and the reason why computer technology is a poor choice in educational settings, even in first world countries: because it becomes obsolete so fast, because it has a huge unbudgeted infrastructure cost, and because the software support to make it effective is either expensive or non-existent.
Yes, I’m aware of the flaws of the problems usually associated with technology infusions into third-world nations, and the nasty habit these have of becoming revenue streams for first-world companies, howeve I’m not sure what “large infrastructure investment” the OLPC project would require.
Also, it’s clear that there’s no Internet access plan as part of the OLPC project (as this would be beyond its mandate). However, if the PCs are wireless-ready, then such a plan could be developed at reduced costs (compared to, say, land lines).
As far as computer technology becoming obsolete fast, I think this needs to be put in perspective. As PCs become more powerful, their useful life also increases. You can still do a lot with a Pentium 166: you can use word processing and spreadsheet software, you can surf the web, you can send and receive e-mails, you can read PDFs (though you might be patient). The OLPC, while not a powerful computer by today’s standard, can still have a long, useful life.
Finally, as far as software support goes, I agree there should be some careful planning there as well, however I guess the idea is to have to countries be self-sufficient in that area. I believe volunteer support by the community at large could also be possible (I could see myself contributing, as long as it can be done remotely).
however I’m not sure what “large infrastructure investment” the OLPC project would require.
such a plan could be developed at reduced costs (compared to, say, land lines).
You partially answer your own question. Remember that we’re dealing with impoverished countries, so that “large” is relative.
The OLPC doesn’t include
* technical support, including repairs
* training costs
* communications infrastructure such as you mention
* curriculum development costs
* content aquisition costs
* operating costs
* et cetera.
and its price has already gone up 50% while it’s being prototyped.
You partially answer your own question. Remember that we’re dealing with impoverished countries, so that “large” is relative.
True, however what they lack in financing they can sometimes compensate for in manpower.
The OLPC doesn’t include
* technical support, including repairs
* training costs
To me those represent good opportunities to develop domestic expertise in those fields. These countries need to be self-sufficient (despite the fact that western corporations would like to keep them dependent).
* communications infrastructure such as you mention
That’s wider than the scope of the OLPC project, though. It’s unfair to expect them to solve this.
* curriculum development costs
* content aquisition costs
* operating costs
These would be there with any Educational project.
and its price has already gone up 50% while it’s being prototyped.
True, and it may still increase. I do believe that they should allow the sale of it (at a higher price) to developed nations – in a different color scheme, I imagine – to help finance its development. I’ve already taken the pledge to purchase one at 300$ if 100,000 other people do so (I’m not sure we’ll reach that number, though…)
http://www.pledgebank.com/100laptop
* communications infrastructure such as you mention
That’s wider than the scope of the OLPC project, though. It’s unfair to expect them to solve this.
and yet, it is a problem that has to be solved for the OLPC to have any value. It is problems like this that are at the root of why giving away technology rarely works out as well as the donor had intended.
While OLPC is completly useless as an education tool of any sort, it is light, durable, power-independent, mesh-network capable, can be converted to the RS-xxx control or satellite tracking device for about $50.
Ideal for jihad warrior battlefield appliance.
That’s a myth. People think it’s easier for kids to learn languages than adults because they don’t remember how much work they put into it as kids.
Do you have any links to support that statement? Because there are quite a few linguists that believe otherwise, especially proponents of the Critical Period Hypothesis.
If it’s a myth, as you claim, then it’s a published and peer-reviewed myth (although admittedly a contested one).
I’m not being flippant, I would appreciate a link holding an opposite position, this is a topic that interests me. Until you provide one, I’ll have to disagree with you on this one.
That’s another one. If you study how people learn science you’ll find that, starting young, they move back and forth. The “basics” need a context to fit in, and the context comes from specific examples.
They may back and forth, but usually start with the basics. 🙂 In any case, it does not provide proof that you need to “learn” learning. Learning comes naturally out of personal motivation, and it needs appropriate environmental factors (such as access to knowledge and tools).
That people go back and forth between basics and specifics indicates a pattern of learning, but nothing else.
Depends on what you mean by “understand”, of course. There are many levels of understanding. That said, you can’t understand QM at the university-level w/o the university-level education
…and even then most won’t understand it fully! I was talking of understanding its principles when properly vulgarized.
and yet, it is a problem that has to be solved for the OLPC to have any value. It is problems like this that are at the root of why giving away technology rarely works out as well as the donor had intended.
It can still have value: these countries do have Internet infrastructures, even if they’re often rudimentary by first world standards.
It’s a well-known fact among people who travel to developing countries that one of the most visible change in the last couple of years is the number of Internet Cafes that have popped up. The Internet has arrived to the third world – it’s just that people will need to walk a bit to get content.
A wireless infrastructure could be implemented at costs that are far lower than laying down wires all over…
What I’m saying is that the third world is getting connected, slowly but surely, and it is doing so independently of the OLPC. So blasting the OLPC for something which is outside of its scope and is improving anyway seems a bit unfair to me.
You can continue to criticize the project, if you want, though there’s nothing constructive in your comments. I myself hope that the OLPC will have a positive effect overall, since it’s likely that it’s going to happen *anyway*.