"Open content is incredibly powerful advertising for universities"

I come from a rural part of the USA, from West Virginia. In the school I went to, there were a few calculators which we had to share in class. When I grew up, I created a calculator program for a web page. This anecdote can be compared to the democratising effect of open content. If we put all information freely on to the internet, then everyone will have the same chances, at the same time, to learn all kinds of subjects. I see very positive aspects. For example, you want to buy a book about Ireland because you are preparing a trip, so you go to the bookshop and find two books. One is open; and the other is sealed and you cannot look through it. Which would you buy? You would probably prefer to open the book, have a look and make sure it is going to be useful before buying it. Now, with open content, there are classes with unsealed books. You can find out about the content of subjects before paying money to study them. And, as more professors get involved with open content, this will bring more pressure to bear on others, because when these close the doors to their classes, no one can know what they are like. If a potential student can see what is going on, they are more likely to want to enter. I think that open content is incredibly powerful advertising for universities: it lets people see what goes on in a course before signing up. Let's take the case of Spain, with 500,000 students going to university. If centres open their content, I don't think this number of students would go up to 600,000; but universities that open their contents do benefit, because many more students will choose to go there and, consequently, there will be much more general pressure on everyone to open their content. The first universities that get involved in open content will gain the best publicity, which will lead to more students enrolling. It will stimulate competition, as in the business world, and this could be fantastic. It should also be stressed that there are complex motives behind open content. In the academic year 2002-2003, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the USA began an important open content project with material from its subjects. From then on, other schools said "Ah! We'll do the same!" No doubt, they wanted everyone to think that they were as good as MIT. In this case, we are no longer talking about democratisation; there are other motivations. There are also educational centres that have realised that to stay in business, they are going to have to adopt open content. There are a number. People get hold of the information in the same way as they would normally over the internet. There are various options: for example, you can sell information, or not; you can take it and modify its content, or not; if you change it, you have to share the new version with everyone else, or not. It rests on finding the licence that best suits. At MIT, for example, you can share content, but you cannot put it up for sale. There are people who think that all material should be open content, but I do not feel this way. Some are like me, I am a professor, I have my work, I can pay for my house and buy food, and while I prepare my classes, I produce material that I have already been paid to produce. When I have it, why not share it? There is no extra cost involved. If I was a policeman, and when I got home, I worked overtime to produce material, then maybe I would want someone to pay for it, but there are many situations where this is not the case. At my university, the policy is that the materials belong to the professors and, thus, I can decide what I want to do with it. But other universities say that the open content material is the institution's property. The same problems that currently affect internet. You can go to the BBC and copy whatever you want and sell it, despite the copyright. This is the case everywhere. However, open content has its own tools for security. If I write a book and put it on the internet, which is something I have done, and someone wants to modify it, they can do so on their web page, but not on mine. There may be authors who might never want to make their materials open content? Fine! They do not have to do so. Others, though, will and we need to make things easier for these people. I do know some professors who think that they will write something that has never been said before or that they will become rich thanks to a book, but in each subject, like in mathematics, for example, there may be half a dozen reference books, and all the other authors will never sell anything or maybe at most a couple of hundred copies. They do not have much chance of getting rich. The United States is a dumb place in certain respects. There are states where it is illegal for students to share notes, because the professor reckons: "This material belongs to me, I said this and that". Some years ago, a few people created web pages where students could share their notes; they were sued and had to close down. In California, they have just passed a law that prohibits students from sharing their notes from class! Currently and in general terms, in order to get a job, a student needs qualifications. There are open and closed subjects, internet courses or sealed books, but students still have to enrol at an educational centre. There are those who see education as content. If this were the case, we would only need libraries and not universities. When you pick up a book and read about a subject, from mathematics to philosophy, there always comes that time when you have a doubt, when there is something you do not understand, and you want to ask someone to explain it to you. Education needs contents, but it also needs help from people. And the content is not the value provided by universities, this comes from local libraries or Wikipedia, and, what's more, for free. What is important is the availability of professors to explain those things we do not understand. Universities also offer the chance to meet other students, share ideas, gain qualifications and maybe one day join together to create a company. And universities also provide us with diplomas. The content is the least important part of all of this. So, universities adapt to the lifestyles of the new generations. For example, today in the United States, if someone qualifies from a university and starts working, before retiring, they will have changed work an average of six times. And before changing jobs, they always need training. It is hard to go back to university six times to get new qualifications? so, other forms arise, such as enrolling for just one or two subjects at an online university. Having open content material available is just another element in training. Probably those linked to IT: how to write a computer program or related technical questions. Many people look to the internet when searching for this information and people who know a lot about computer programs also enter university websites. Yes, this is also true. Many people who write computer programs are too young to go to university. They might be fifteen or sixteen years old, whilst many others have already qualified. But there are also those who are at university and who also work or perhaps write programs as part of their work; and, thus, they find open content useful. In this sense, yes, we can see how open content has an informal educational facet, as well as a traditional side. Some of the new generations have a very negative view of the traditional educational system: they do not like school. So, when they search the internet and find information that leads them to a university, they ignore it; but, if they realise that this information is useful to them, then they will consult it. Thus, open content offers added value, in that it allows people to study at their own rhythm. Everyone has their own natural speed: with open content, you are free to go more quickly or more slowly.