Hacker News Reader

Comment by DailyHN | Hacker News Reader

> Namusobya from ISER said she believes BIA causes segregation between the poor and rich. She said in government-run schools every child is treated equally, but BIA's model only targets the poor.

Not sure that I'm seeing the problem here... since when are the rich jealous of the poors' education?

And here is the bit where Gates/Zuck benefit (possibly now, certainly in the future):

> You have technology -- like tablets -- often standing in place of teachers...

Gates/Zuck [could] make more money selling tech to these schools (probably not through tuition, though, because it's only $6/month).

[I see the benefits being long-term edu foothold, not short-term profiteering]

Edit: Added edits in [].

View on HN

Doubtful. I'm not fan of Gates or Zuckerberg, but they can invest their money with a much higher return than is likely to be achieved in the Ugandan private education industry.

Even people who generally do the wrong thing can do the right thing sometimes - and Gates in particular has demonstrated this. Sure, contributing to reducing malaria deaths means more potential windows users, but it's a bit of a tenuous link.

Are you saying that you do not see the massive opportunity that is establishing a foothold in school systems in developing countries?

More specifically, Facebook owns Oculus which puts them in one of the best positions to replace schools/teachers with technology/VR.

Additionally, I'm not saying I disagree with Gates/Zuck. I'm sure they only have good intentions.

Seems like normal monitors might be a far easier solution than VR.

Monitors still require a physical presence in the local area(building + substantial energy source). On the other hand, a single VR device can last a student for years and it doesn't require travel to-from class.

The substantial energy source is a benefit, not a drawback. It's much easier and cheaper - and therefore faster - to power a single building than to extend the grid to every house. Remember, less than 20% of Uganda homes have electricity.

As for the building, it costs $55k to build a full school in Uganda for 325 kids, complete with library and offices. Assuming it lasts for 20 years with minor repairs, that's ten cohorts of students, so 3250, which means $16 per student.

I find the thought of replacing schools and teachers with technology and VR a scary dystopia.

It seems we've gone a long way... in the wrong direction, I suppose. For example, the consensus in Sci-Fi used to be the other way: people like Bradbury and Asimov imagined nightmare scenarios were kids were taught by futuristic devices, and the implication was that human contact with actual teachers mattered; that exposure to other people with different opinions -- who might even get angry at you -- was a good thing; that education is a social thing, not a mere transference of "content".

Of course there's a lot to fix in education, but why would one root for an educational system in the hands of corporations and practiced by replacing everything with tech?

I don't see why a social element couldn't be involved in a VR education.

How is the current school-social-experience ideal anyway? Specifically I'm thinking about bullying and the limited time that is actually spent solving problems with peers.

First of all, I do agree there's much to improve about education.

I don't know if the focus of education should be on "solving problems". Part of it, yes. Parts of education aren't about solving anything. Bullying is a problem in some parts of the world, and not so much in others. I experienced some bullying at school, and it didn't traumatize me. I also made friends and interacted with people, played truant and learned some things. I talked and played with students who had a very different background from mine; I learned about parents and families who thought and acted nothing like mine.

VR & tech don't preclude a social element, that's true, but how it's presented often hints at it. "Replacing teachers with VR" hints at it, for example.

I'd rather learn from a 99th percentile teacher using various technology (to increase their reach) than from a top 50% teacher that is located in the same room.

I didn't (and don't) get much value from my classmates anyway, so I believe I wouldn't be worse off even as some kind of remote student.

Seems quite far-fetched (and divorced from the reality of schools) to imagine that VRs will replace teachers, particularly in these cases.

Teachers - particularly in the lower levels of schooling - are much, much more than simply dispensers of knowledge; they're also child-carers who have a close relationship with the kids, manage their relationships between each other and the parents, and can help identify and fix or at least report problems (negligence, sexual abuse, etc).

You could say, "but they're expensive and VR is cheap," but not really - in these places, labor costs are much lower; a single Oculus kit plus PC costs more than what a teacher earns in a year in Uganda, and they can teach a full classroom. Plus you'd still need someone to watch over the kids, even if they can't teach classes. So you're saving even less.

I can see Microsoft pushing to install regular computers running Windows, to get people trained in it and keep companies from switching (since they'd have to train everyone). And I could see Facebook developing some kind of version for schools, similar to Workplace by Facebook. But VR? Not for many decades, at least.

"Are you saying that you do not see the massive opportunity that is establishing a foothold in school systems in developing countries?"

This is conspiratorial.

These are not 'for profit' schools in any classical sense of the term.

It's basically just an education charity.

They get parents to pay a little bit to offset costs.

That's it.

There's no 'plan' other than to get the poorest kids a decent education.

The government is pissed because it exposes their failure.

Imagine if a Swedish NGO started providing 'basic education' for 'near free' in New Orleans? It would be rather embarrassing to America, no?

This is not uncommon. Sometimes when nations have natural disasters they refuse to accept aid because they don't want to admit they 'need it' or to accept their developing nation status etc..

Imagine if a Swedish NGO started providing 'basic education' for 'near free' in New Orleans? It would be rather embarrassing to America, no?

That's an interesting thought experiment. I think a lot of people would be receptive because there's a perception that public schools are failing a large segment of Americans (probably because they are). There would be curiosity about whether "Swedish educational models" could help. And there would be nativists protesting that this is an attempt to indoctrinate children with socialism and the New World Order. Almost certainly the teacher's union would be against it.

Probably not so different from the dynamic in Uganda.

American public schools are not failing - the students are.

Americans spend more / capita, and more absolute $ than anywhere on earth. All kids have access to decent schools. Teachers care a lot.

But when kids murder each other, don't show up, their parents don't care, nobody pays attention or values work, kids are passed even though they are illiterate ... well ... it's really not the schools.

Take decent students and put them in the same schools and you get good results.

Not blaming the students directly, other than to say they are functions of their families and communities.

Anyhow - this whole argument about this charity is missing the point - it's basically just a charity doing very good work, and the local semi-corrupt government officials are pissed off - that's it.

This is not an issue of reporting, or 'American Imperialism' or 'do-gooder white people not understanding culture' etc. etc.

This is actually just crazy Africa.

kids are passed even though they are illiterate ... well ... it's really not the schools.

Surely the school is to blame if they're passing kids who are illiterate.

it's basically just a charity doing very good work

Can you provide any references that BIA is in fact doing very good work? Glowing reviews seem to be thin on the ground.

This is actually just crazy Africa.

It's also crazy Belgium and crazy Candada saying BIA is up to no good as I posted earlier - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/06/...

The name-dropping of Gates and Zuck helps the western reader relate to pretty domestic Ugandan news. Whereas it helps attracts views, I wonder exactly to what extent the two billionaires and their interests are involved in BIA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com