My knock on large institutions is they tend to produce followers, people who are content to jump through the hoops that employers, state and institution agree should be the course for the professionals and great learners who are the result. Of course, we expect students to be tested, to write papers and defend their writing. It’s the way learning has always been done. Or, was it. Socrates led students individually through a process of posing questions to discover the student’s thoughts and process of thinking. In law school, the instructor similarly discovers the thinking of the student and hopes to lead the student to an answer. This learning is cumbersome. An instructor might hope to question three students over the course of an hour.

The lab experience is probably not going to be replaced anytime soon. I’m sure there is a frog dissection on the Internet. But the kind of learning that the institution is looking for won’t quite happen sitting at a computer.

To be fair to what Tom has written, computers may one day soon create virtual experiences that can be individualized. Quality of education may take a huge leap on that day. Until then, there will be class experience that will need instructors and professors there to direct and assist.

There are some great minds that are as entertaining as they are instructive. The late Carl Sagan was said to put in only rare appearances in the classroom. I would think that Brian Greene (Elegant Universe), the approachable string theorist at Columbia, fits that description. Greene is famous for his PBS series that explored his book Elegant Universe. He has made television appearances and makes himself available for a science conference. The great scientists are getting plenty of air time. Turning their contributions into lessons might require collaboration and opportunity for other instructors to gain audiences. Berkeley has an outreach program that is working on this.

The idea is not to take jobs away from educators. In fact, the effect should require even more contribution. Infecting younger minds with science is the mission of University of California at Berkeley. These educators likely won’t end up pining for the old days before syndication. There will be roles for discussion coaches, testers and lab leaders. Occasionally, classes had to leave the campus for field trips. Taking students virtually to the great telescope in Chile will be possible. Heck, we can probably take them into a black hole – virtually, of course.

Technology and the Internet are expanding education as well as research. When I wrote about Hispanic scientists performing research in nanotechnology a few years ago, a scientist shared photographs of himself inside a simulator working at the nanoscale.

Syndication will follow virtual experiences. Rumor is simulated experiences are superior to textbook learning. I don’t know how simulated surgery compares to the real thing, but I’m willing to be the robot wielding the scalpel doesn’t mind if the person in the room is holding a camera.

As for costs, it makes sense. I still prefer to think that someone will be there occasionally observing what the students are taking in. Simulators are not there yet. But, I’m willing to bet they will be. If there is mass appeal, you can bet an opportunistic and large corporation will exploit it.

Good post, Tom.

I would also agree that not just “anyone” can develop a good course. But there needs to be a system that makes it relatively simple for topical experts to translate their knowledge into an easily digestible course, and for that course to be accessible to the rest of the world. Clearly, that’s the missing piece.

This is a similar argument when Wikipedia first came out, that average people shouldn’t be allowed to write encyclopedia entries. And Wikipedia went through some growing pains, but they now have enough checks and balances in the system so the results are now pretty good.

iTunes, eBay, Craigslist and many others have worked through similar issues of quality control. I think its doable.

I like your suggestion to research exactly “why institutions are pricing themselves out of existence.” I’ll work on that.

I really appreciate your thoughtful response.

Tom

You have done an excellent job in capturing the historical roots to the current environment, the key drivers past/present/future, and identifying potential changes that might arise as key drivers change.

I especially like your stated purpose of helping colleges survive and thrive in this transition period. There is much good in the current higher education model, and all will benefit if higher education can successfully morph relative to new or altered drivers.

I have long cited the work by Eli Noam (1995) entitled “Electronics and the Dim Future of the University” as being the best forward-looking document regarding what the future of education might look like, and the causative reasons for those changes. Much of what you discuss mirrors elements in Noam’s paper (primarily the ‘drivers’).

One concern I have in regard to the future of higher education and its impact on society is that traditional higher education (eg, the many socially interactive opportunities available on a resident campus) serves as a ‘weaning’ stage that supports children becoming adults. Traditional campus structures allow our children to learn what is required to be responsible adults within the context of an environment that is less structured than the home, but with enough structure to provide a sort of safety net. Society benefits from this transitionary role of higher education, but those benefits are only rarely mentioned in discussions about the ‘costs’ vs ROI that society receives from the higher education enterprise.

As you, Noam and others state, the ‘fulcrum’ that is currently supporting the enterprise of higher education is accreditation. The measurements currently associated with accreditation are often quite subjective. More objective measures of evaluating educational progress are needed. I am a big fan of competency-based education, and such a model would provide more objective measures of leaner outcomes and effectiveness of delivery.

One suggestion would be to describe in more detail why institutions are pricing themselves out of existence. There are a number of reasons behind this phenomenon, and I will not take time here to describe them.

Community Colleges are currently booming for two reasons…
i) The cost of higher education has increased to where many cannot afford such for four years, and hence shift to lower cost community college programs;
ii) A growing percentage of high school graduates have graduated with gaps in basic skills, and community colleges are sometimes the best place to receive remedial/developmental education. Over 40% of students enrolling in community colleges, and over 20% of students enrolling in 4-yr institutions, require at least one remedial course. Ie, the real problem might reside in K-12 education (root cause), but is manifesting itself in higher education.

I disagree (strongly) that ‘anyone’ can develop a good course, that learning will simply occur through social learning, or that ‘good’ learning will be effected without some structure. However, I do believe that education will benefit greatly from the growth of social networks (ie, two-way communication). However, best practices in instructional design are required as an overlay, and must incorporate social networking tools (and new modalities as they develop in the future). In addition, social networks alone are generally less productive as a means to effect learning. The ‘templated’ process you describe should include best practices in instructional design, and make it easy for the ‘developer’ to take advantage of these best practices.

Lastly, do not underestimate the value of the emotional attachment of alumni to institutions. There is no institution in modern society that provides such strong attachment between “customer” and “provider” as higher education (and “customer” can be a resident of a particular state, vs having actually attended the institution). Attendance at any U Florida, U Texas, U Nebraska, etc football game will attest to the very strong linkage between alumni (or state affiliations) and an institution. This is a strength and driver that should be leveraged in the new model.

Thanks again for putting together this excellent summary of market drivers and potential outcomes for higher education. I truly hope that your words and the associated discussion help higher education to morph and thrive in the years and decades to come.

If you remember, it was only 25 years ago when we were finally able to own our own telephones.

Colleges are all about the flow of information, and information is currently moving with great fluidity around all existing structures. The disruptive thinking behind these changes doesn’t really care about tradition or existing power structures. To some, this is a frightening thought.

I may be overly optimistic, but my sense is that the forces of change are far more powerful that the forces of academia.

- Thomas Frey

In a similar way, higher ed has moved into on-line to make money and show it is changing while it really isn’t. Brick and mortar, research and faculty still rule and will continue to do so. Vested interest will stay in place. And the central papal controlling bodies are in place to assure this. They are called accrediting agencies and State oversight. They are also vested and will not give up their prerogatives that assure they all have power and jobs. They will all use technology somewhat but not let it change their world too much. Just see how little and how poorly most schools even use their MIS systems.

What you say is correct but it will not happen in your or my lifetime I fear. It would take an overthrow of higher ed. Don’t see any group that has the ability of fortitude to do that.