I define digital skills as knowing how to work a kind of technology, whereas digital literacy is the knowledge of how a kind of technology works. One is not better than the other, however. If someone or some group wants to accomplish a goal using technology, they're going to need both literacy and skill. Having little skill with a lot of literacy would be like knowing how a car engine works on a technical scale, but not being able to fix it if your car broke down. Having little literacy with a lot of skill would be like having a bad teacher for a subject. They understand the material, perhaps even demonstrate mastery, but they cannot teach their knowledge to others because of the communication gap.

This article is very circular; it does not conclude upon many ideas. This quote showcases that the singular study on the topic should be taken with a grain of salt, because it is still a very unexplored topic. This also contradicts the earlier statements of the article by saying that the biggest apparent factor is the ability for someone to manage their own temptation/distraction. These are independent traits and might or might not be affected by things like, high school grades, economic status, childhood environment. This article only speaks about one study that had one trial at one location, and according to the widely believed laws of science research, no major conclusions can be made off of it because it has not been tested with a variety of variables. Especially with fields such as psychology, it is important to test many different aspects over time. This phenomena could only be located at University of Toronto, but we have no way of knowing until this study is done with a slightly different set of variables.

Social History favors the "little man", or focuses on the day-to-day happenings and trends of individual people, so it opposes institutionalism by nature, as many institutions/authority have a degree of dehumanization in them

The outcome of education is now required to be informational, and able to adapt in the current economic world, but the method of teaching has remained in the industrial age, leaving a sharp disconnect between results and efforts made from higher institutions.

The author calls for more specialization towards a particular field/university. This is not a direct contrast to Carnegie units, but it would argue that "General Education" is largely a waste of time, and students should be able to focus their learning into small categories or areas. The author argues that doing so will increase the quality and dedication to academics.

Despite his truly scientific studies, Du Bois was still cast aside because of his race, background, and controversial stance, while others who fell in line with certain qualities were held in higher regard, no matter how reliable their work was.

Du Bois and Weber did not have a teacher-student relationship, rather, they had a peer relationship. They might have helped each others reputations by collaborating and spearheading ideas together

Du Bois made sure to acknowledge all levels of African-Americans, both wealthy and non-wealthy

It is possible that no other researcher had focused so heavily on this ethnic issue, at least no as heavy as Du Bois. The sociology of ethic issues is a very important aspect of social science and the author praises Du Bois for this

The author switches to a partial concession here, and says that the school does have a little bit of small backing. Maybe he says this to defend his credibility.

The author's education had been misguided or built off an incomplete model, which can easily happen in scientific fields