Fifteen weeks ago, I walked into a course I knew little about. We all looked at each other confused, as Professor Finkel explained the concept of the course. I left that evening extremely confused, however interested in the courses potential. The following class I would return to find others still as intrigued as I was. The course would be a living experiment, rather than a course that had been taught one hundred times before. It would allow the individual to explore many avenues of study, while also exploring the potential of cryptocurrency. It would create a concept where history books were “dusted off,” and incorporated into a modern platform. This platform would be an organic, “living” if you will, cryptocurrency platform with traits of social media. So, like with every great experiment, we learned a lot from are successes, and even more from are mistakes.
We experienced a few issues along the way, here they are:
Length and complexity of Course: This course offered us a great amount of freedom to explore history, while also working with a cryptocurrency platform. However, it would be great if there was an additional class next semester (obviously course would need to be optional), to continue the process. Cryptocurrency, like other markets, seem to be something that you need to study over time. Sixteen weeks most likely isn’t enough time to understand the potential of the market.
Potential of the market: Most of us were novice to the cryptocurrency market. It would have been interesting to look into insight from reliable sources. Temples Fox School of Business potentially could have provided us with the little knowledge out there about this new market in currency’s.
Liberal Arts and Collaborative Approach: While are course was specifically Liberal Arts, we had a collaborative approach by also working with the History course. This collaborative approach offered different views, and concepts. I think the concept of having different backgrounds working together is vital in an ever-changing world. Reaching out to other schools of thought would be interesting for future classes similar to this one.
Timeframe for choosing, approaching, and delivering the finds to a specific organization. As mentioned before, more time was needed to fully develop the approach. However, I do think allowing us to pick which organizations to approach was a good idea. Additional Time also would have provided us more potential to develop our profit. If it had been two semesters, the profit potentially could have been significantly higher. A higher profit could of helped organizations decide to work with us
1918 – 1918 was a significant year in History, however it would have been interesting to select other years as the class went on. The selection in topics became limited as the semester went on. Also, if we choose other years to also approach, it may have brought in more views on Steemit, because it would have enticed other followers.
Outreach to Temple: Possibly in the future, reaching out to the school newspaper, specific departments, or school social media avenues have great potential. These avenues help to develop a large support group within Temple, and increase publicity for the class project.