One Lap Top per child project 

The one lap top per child project can be seen as a very effective approach for people in underdeveloped countries, but also as a profitable business rather than benefiting a cause.  Over the past year, underdeveloped countries have been given the chance to communicate with friends, family and strangers worldwide; however, recently throughout my online research, the project that was once seen as successful and educational enhancing is falling apart because of a money driven company called Intel.  While I was researching articles on ProQuest, I came across 12 articles under full text documents that were non scholarly articles and 6 articles under full text documents that I believe to be scholarly articles.  The reason I had to make my own judgment is because there were no results when I clicked on the scholarly button when doing an advanced search on ProQuest; however, in the end I found two great articles that had information that focused on the disadvantages of the project rather the advantages and opportunities it provides. 

The first article I choose, which just happened to be the very first article on the list, was titled “Hanafin scorns ‘laptops for all’ schools plan” by the Irish Independent in Dublin Ireland.  This article written on January 10, 2008, discussed the topic of education and science and debated the issue of the XO lap tops.   Fine Gael defends the cost of the lap tops saying that they need to be the price of $188 figuring in the “substantial costs for items, such as insurance, maintenance and networking”, but Mary Hanafin believes that the lap tops are not sufficient enough and “would need to have a good suite of software included, a good memory capacity and be small enough to be relatively portable given that children would have to carry them around”. The article featured several debates over the efficiency and advantages of these XO laptops.  And to make matters worse, just when foreign countries were getting used to the new XO laptop, Intel pulled out.  “Two countries, Libya and Uruguay, had signed memorandums of understanding but he was not aware of any production of the laptops yet in either country. To make matters worse, Intel, which is developing its own Classmate notebook, has just pulled out of the XO- I project and the likelihood was that the costs would rise rather than fall, said Mr. Morrissey.  Not only should grants and funding be available to purchase these laptops, but more quality lap tops that provide multiple usages should be provided worldwide for the simple fact of helping people in other countries who can not afford to buy their own lap tops. 

The scholarly article differed in a sense that its focus was on the relationship between Intel and the One Lap Top per Child organization (OLPC).  This article titled “Intel OLPC split, a cause for concern?” published on January 14, 2008 was described the disappointment that OLPC felt towards Intel after Intel failed to live up to their promises.  “Intel joined the OLPC board of directors in July 2007 and pledged to contribute $18 million to the group, despite the two having a strained history”.  Intel decided to stick with their low cost Classmate PC and compete against the XO; therefore, no longer helping OLPC’s cause internationally.  This scholarly article focused on NGO and Corporate partnerships and their commitments or lack there of in business. “Coverage of the situation has implied that Intel may have shown greater interest in selling its laptop than in benefiting the cause. But Intel has stressed its support of the larger CSR issue, which Darigan feels could ultimately protect its reputation”.  This article showed the heartache that a smaller company can feel when a larger money hungry corporation can squash them when alternative ideas arise.

In the end, both articles related in that they both stressed the issue of Intel representing itself poorly and not having their mind set on the customer’s needs but rather the product and its money making ability.  In contrast, the articles differed in that the first non-scholarly article focused in more on the quality and ability for the product to provide educational services to the youth and the scholarly article focused primarily on the partnership between the two companies not the actual product or customers.  Both articles were great articles and got me to think more in depth on the real reasoning behind these lap tops and its service to the world.

Hanafin scorns ‘laptops for all’ schools plan. (2008). Irish Independent, 1. Retrieved  January 30, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com.offcampus.lib. washington.edu/pqdweb?did=1410840551&sid= 1&Fmt=3&clientId=2302&RQT=309 &VName=PQD

Garcia, Tonya. (2008). Intel-OLPC split, a cause for concern? PRweek. (U.S. ed.), 8, 1. Retrieved January 30, 2008, from http://proquest.umi.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/pqdweb?did=1421311371&sid=11&Fmt=3&clientId=2302&RQT =309&VName=PQD fixURL(”wrapURL7″, ‘http://proquest.umi.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/pqdweb

did=1421311371&sid=11&Fmt=3&clientId=2302&RQT=309&VName=PQD’)