Every Monday and Thursday I receive the Washington University Record via email. Most of the news is inwardly focused and academic – hardly interesting to anyone not affiliated with the University. But today, an article relevant to what’s discussed on this site caught my eye.

The piece reviews all the strides Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) is making in energy conservation and the reduction of energy costs. Why? Well,

“On the Danforth Campus in 1992, utility systems could not support future building growth; utility infrastructure was obsolete and inefficient; the central steam plant was coal fired, labor intensive and environmentally unfriendly; steam losses exceeded steam loads during summer operation; electrical capacity was near its limit; electrical distribution was unreliable; and many buildings were not air conditioned.”

Yikes. So there’s that.

To solve these issues, the Danforth Campus facilities department outlined a series of objectives to help ease the energy strain, including: increasing the reliability and capacity of the utility systems; updating the systems technology; reducing energy consumption and operating cost; and being environmentally friendly.

That’s more like it. WUSTL claims, “Since 1992, the School of Medicine has saved $26 million as a result of various equipment upgrades and other energy-saving measures.” Can you imagine what tuition would be without those savings?! Probably the same ridiculous amount actually.

“We are a participant in the U.S. Green Lights program, and have replaced all fluorescent tube bulbs with T8 lamps and all ballast with electronic units,” Thaman said. “And we are trying to minimize the use of outside air. Anytime outside air is brought into a building, it has to be either heated or cooled. By reducing the amount of outside air brought into a building, there is a reduction in the use of energy.

All of the actions taken thus far are fabulous, and will measurably impact the amount of environmental damage caused by the University’s operations. One cool thing WUSTL did was the following: 

“Graduate and undergraduate students are involved in educational and research activities. A notable project was the one led by students in the Committee on Environmental Quality — where a set of solar panels were installed on the roof of Olin Library that tie into the grid. And a new department has been created in the School of Engineering and Applied Science — the Department of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering — to further enhance WUSTL’s involvement in this area of education and research.

To see the power generated by the solar panels on the library’s roof, go online to here.

This should only be the beginning of the green movement within institutions of higher learning. Schools like WUSTL have tremendous amounts of capital and it should be used not only to replace coal-fired boilers and incandescent but to guarantee every new structure that’s erected on its campus has LEED certification or something equivalent. Universities are incubators of new ideas and the future. They should assume their rightful place as green leaders of the built environment.

I’ve maintained for some time our education system, while the “best” in the world, isn’t capable of competing long term on the global stage. Most of my qualms have been with post-secondary education though. It’s too expensive and not student-focused. The majority of dollars flow to research and maintaining the system. Universities strong-arm communities and offer very little tangible benefit to their customers – they are businesses after all. Plus, the schools known for teaching aren’t involved in the hype and usually concentrate in the liberal arts. While there’s nothing wrong with that, and a balanced education is vital, writers, philosophers and painters aren’t going to keep the economy of the United States dominant. Science and math drive the economy, the economy keeps food on our table and affords us the time and money to appreciate the finer things in life, like the arts. All that being said, Microsoft has brought this thinking to the high school level. According to the article:

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has famously called high schools “obsolete” and warned about their effect on U.S. competitiveness. Now, his company has a chance to prove that it can help fix the woes of public education.

A bold task if there ever was one. But companies like Microsoft have succeeded doing the things no one else thought possible. Is it that big of a stretch to think that kind of thinking, whether in the software industry or in education, isn’t transferable? 

The project cost $63 million. The Philadelphia school system paid for this but Microsoft chipped in its personnel and management skills. Some features of the school include: every student is equipped with a laptop instead of textbooks, the school day mimics the work day, and teachers use smart boards instead of blackboards.

One great thing about the school is that it wasn’t built in a posh suburban neighborhood. It’s “gleaming white modern facility looking out of place amid rows of ramshackle homes in a working-class West Philadelphia neighborhood”. And, about “170 teens, nearly all black and mainly low-income, were chosen by lottery to make up the freshman class. The school eventually plans to enroll up to 750 students”.

My first concern was that Microsoft was hawking its junk on the students, but there are a couple of mitigating factors to my fear. First, Philadelphia approached Microsoft. Second, the students were most likely familiar with Microsoft’s products to begin with. Third, if Microsoft can pull this off they deserve to have their products predominantly featured at the school.

If the experiment works though, it will hopefully be the first of many. And imagine the operating cost savings for these schools if open source software is incorporated into the system.

Doug Lynch, vice dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. “Two things are quite intriguing — the willingness of the district and Microsoft to try something different,” Lynch said. He cautioned, however, that while trying new methods may be valuable “we have to be careful because you’re messing with kids’ lives.”

He’s got a point. I’m in favor of experimentation though. The present system is being held together with duct tape and trying something new is the only way to more forward.