Rebecca has been practicing her HTML (you go, Glen Coco) and has also graced us with this fabulous image. I like her commitment to learning about coding and the practical benefits she foresees this may offer her in her professional career. I agree with her, and I might start using a resource she suggested for skilling myself up with the language of HTML (how’s that for a tautology) called W3Schools.

Jamie muses over the Nelson reading from week 5 and assesses how far we’ve come since his predictions of paperless offices and a world without libraries. (Also, great Theodor pun, Jamie. I’m a big fan).

Image via Quickmeme

Let’s be honest for a sec, when we need to research does our mind automatically think “library” or “Google”? Thanks to advancing technology we are being conditioned to move away from traditional print literacy.” – Jamie.

I completely agree with this, and have noticed my personal shift away from the traditional institution of the library throughout my academic career. During my time at RMIT I could probably count the times I’ve used the library on my two hands, however I can guarantee I’ve used the RMIT library’s online search tools and database for almost every assignment. That’s without even mentioning Old Mate Google…

Finally, Nethaniel talks about whether or not he’s a ‘humanities student’ at heart, after Adrian mentioned in Symposium 05 that ‘we’re not programmers’. I find this concept of student typologies very problematic and I’m trying to slowly work it out. Maybe it’s just my intrinsic dislike of labels (#angst) but I feel like this doesn’t allow for conceptualising students as multi-faceted with their own collective talents. Does that mean that because you’re studying medicine you’ll never understand the nuances of musicology? Can physical ed. students forget about political theory or gender studies? Basically, I don’t think that what ‘type’ of student you are is mutually exclusive of what ‘type’ of student you were, could be, or might be. I will end on that double negative.