One session for example, from an investment banker, presented distance learning as a very attractive option to potential investors, particularly as part of a balanced overall portfolio. Any training provision tended to be counter-cyclical, and not follow normal financial cycles like most other investments; once the initial investment had been made, distance learning in particular tended to have high levels of return, and in particular high levels of marginal return from additional units; and much of the new provision was in the sexy area of the worldwideweb, (where the inevitable comparisons with amazon.com, and its remarkable current ratio of valuation to returns, were drawn).

It was a good talk, and I felt comfortable with an investment banker talking about learners as units (of consumption, production or whatever). But when, in a later session on student services, one highly-placed executive from a major multinational provider, talked almost exclusively about systems and units, I for one was left feeling uneasy (as, to judge from what she said about caring for the individual learner, was the speaker who followed him).

Its not unique to the States. UfI faces the same tensions: between supporting the individual and making a profit. Indeed, with UfI the situation is complicated by other agendas; by the strong hints of social engineering and the fascination with new technologies. Inevitably, much of the talk at DETC was about the new technologies, and the growth of Virtual Universities (see later in this issue).

Other sessions, on recent thinking on best practice, in areas as diverse as admissions procedures, materials development, and outcomes assessment, clearly focused on day-to-day issues of relevance to those attending (and, indeed, were just as relevant in the UK as the USA) and were well received.

And the conference as a whole was well-attended, with around 160 delegates, including a sprinkling from Europe.