The rate at which these predictions go unfulfilled has done nothing to diminish the sober-sided gawping with which news anchors and talk-show pundits greet the next round of predictions.

As David Weinberger comments, "[At this point, projections based on the present are worse than useless. And that, of course, is exactly how matters stand at the turn of the millennium when it comes to technology.] We've never experienced a period of such rapid change--especially when it comes to the Web. Making predictions in this kind of environment isn't just foolhardy; it can be a kind of denial. 'Tomorrow will be much like today'--yeah, you wish!" ("Predictions," All Things Considered, August 22, 2000).

Educators have, in general, responded to the prognosticators--perhaps to some extent because changes in media require the kinds of budgetary decisions that can't be made by teachers, but only by administrators; perhaps because the prognosticators get so much attention that even canny teachers fall for the hype. As a result, education's flirtation with technology has typically involved spasmodic convulsions of expenditure and consequent disappointing results.

But Weinberger is right: we oughtn't be counting on prognosticators to guide our expenditures or our pedagogical strategies. Circumstances are changing far too quickly to justify our investing in answers whose value will have evaporated by the time we have changed over our syllabi to the new standard technological gadgetry. Most faculty don't have the time to waste by re inventing their teaching strategies with every wave of change.