Future of college-New York magazine article

[marshwiggle]

I see.  MOOCs on steroids with the curriculum designed by our techno-libertarian overlords.  What could possibly go wrong?

From the article:

Those big-tech companies have to turn their eyes to new prey, the list of which gets pretty short pretty fast if you look at how big these industries need to be in that weight class. Things like automobiles. They'll be in the brains of automobiles, but they don't want to be in the business of manufacturing automobiles because it's a shitty, low-margin business.

This aside raises an overlooked point. Millions of automobiles are produced and sold every year, even if it's a "shitty, low-margin business". Why? Because people need them. Public transit, ride-sharing, telecommuting notwithstanding, there are still many situations where an automobile is the best solution.

Universities are going to have to figure out what they actually provide pedagogically,  (i.e. not the "social" stuuf), face-to-face that can't be easily replicated elsewhere. (And to be blunt, in many cases it's much less than institutions would like to believe it is at present.) Face-to-face has to deliver a recognizably unique value, and in areas where it can do that, it will survive (and potentially thrive). But, much of what is done now will be relatively easy to match online, as will likely become evident in the next decade or so by what shakes out after covid is under control.

[Caracal]

Universities are going to have to figure out what they actually provide pedagogically,  (i.e. not the "social" stuuf), face-to-face that can't be easily replicated elsewhere.

Colleges have never been able to provide learning that really can't be achieved anywhere else.  They are cultural institutions and the meanings people attach to a college education are cultural and social.

[quasihumanist]

Universities are going to have to figure out what they actually provide pedagogically,  (i.e. not the "social" stuuf), face-to-face that can't be easily replicated elsewhere.

Colleges have never been able to provide learning that really can't be achieved anywhere else.  They are cultural institutions and the meanings people attach to a college education are cultural and social.

Most people who get gym memberships don't work out enough to get in shape.

However, gyms don't hand out certificates that say someone has been a member for a few years, and even if they did, no one would seriously take one as evidence that the certificate holder was in shape.

[Wahoo Redux]

Universities are going to have to figure out what they actually provide pedagogically,  (i.e. not the "social" stuuf), face-to-face that can't be easily replicated elsewhere.

Colleges have never been able to provide learning that really can't be achieved anywhere else.  They are cultural institutions and the meanings people attach to a college education are cultural and social.

Most people who get gym memberships don't work out enough to get in shape.

However, gyms don't hand out certificates that say someone has been a member for a few years, and even if they did, no one would seriously take one as evidence that the certificate holder was in shape.

Sure, there are geniuses and unincorporated intellectuals who pursue all sorts of private scholarship.  Can happen.

But they are rare.  It is also possible to do yoga or learn karate or teach yourself to play Chopin on the piano.  Most of us do these things better with mentorship, however.  In fact, most of us need a teacher to guide us, even with YouTube and Wikipedia. 

[Caracal]

Universities are going to have to figure out what they actually provide pedagogically,  (i.e. not the "social" stuuf), face-to-face that can't be easily replicated elsewhere.

Colleges have never been able to provide learning that really can't be achieved anywhere else.  They are cultural institutions and the meanings people attach to a college education are cultural and social.

Most people who get gym memberships don't work out enough to get in shape.

However, gyms don't hand out certificates that say someone has been a member for a few years, and even if they did, no one would seriously take one as evidence that the certificate holder was in shape.

Again, its a crazy thing, but it is almost like our world wasn't designed by a guy in a  policy lab in 1988.

[marshwiggle]

Universities are going to have to figure out what they actually provide pedagogically,  (i.e. not the "social" stuuf), face-to-face that can't be easily replicated elsewhere.

Colleges have never been able to provide learning that really can't be achieved anywhere else.  They are cultural institutions and the meanings people attach to a college education are cultural and social.

Most people who get gym memberships don't work out enough to get in shape.

However, gyms don't hand out certificates that say someone has been a member for a few years, and even if they did, no one would seriously take one as evidence that the certificate holder was in shape.

Indeed. If the primary goal of education is "cultural and social", having young people spend a year working on a humanitarian project in a developing country would probably be vastly more effective, and for lower cost and with some lasting benefit to others. Spending hours sitting in classes and doing assignments is hardly efficient for those purposes.

Sure, there are geniuses and unincorporated intellectuals who pursue all sorts of private scholarship.  Can happen.

But they are rare.  It is also possible to do yoga or learn karate or teach yourself to play Chopin on the piano.  Most of us do these things better with mentorship, however.  In fact, most of us need a teacher to guide us, even with YouTube and Wikipedia.

Some institutions and some instructors will figure out ways to be much more effective as remote mentors than others, and will be able to cash in on that in the future. (And lets's face it; there is a lot of lousy face-to-face "mentoring". Think of how many students never interact one-on-one with an instructor, and think of how many instructors hardly ever interact with any student. Here and on the old fora there are lots of conversations about profs getting lots done during office hours because no-one ever comes to them.)

[Caracal]

Indeed. If the primary goal of education is "cultural and social", having young people spend a year working on a humanitarian project in a developing country would probably be vastly more effective, and for lower cost and with some lasting benefit to others. Spending hours sitting in classes and doing assignments is hardly efficient for those purposes.

Not what I meant. Colleges exist in a cultural context. They didn't start because somebody ran a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it was the ideal way to prepare 18 year olds for a successful career.

Also, why does everyone always think that what "poor" countries need is 18 years with no skills? How, exactly is this person on a gap year going to provide any "lasting benefit to others?

[marshwiggle]

Indeed. If the primary goal of education is "cultural and social", having young people spend a year working on a humanitarian project in a developing country would probably be vastly more effective, and for lower cost and with some lasting benefit to others. Spending hours sitting in classes and doing assignments is hardly efficient for those purposes.

Not what I meant. Colleges exist in a cultural context. They didn't start because somebody ran a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it was the ideal way to prepare 18 year olds for a successful career.

Sure, but the cultural context now is vastly different than it was even 50 years ago due to technology.

Swiss watch companies developed digital watches early on( i.e. before they became popular), but didn't pursue them. Kodak developed digital photography early on, but didn't pursue it. In both of these cases, these market dominators didn't want to undermine their own cash cows (expensive watches and film material and developing costs). They made the mistake of thinking change would not come whether they got involved or not.

Airbnb didn't eliminate the hotel industry, but it certainly affected it. Uber didn't eliminate the taxi industry, but it certainly affected it. In both cases, these companies employed technology to take a bite out of these major industries because, like in the cases of digital watches and photography, the major players weren't willing to undermine their own cash cows, and assumed that change wouldn't come if they held out.

Post-secondary education is in the same boat, and the pandemic has accelerated the development of other options tremendously, whether institutions like it or not. The question is not whether things will change, but how quickly and by how much.

[Wahoo Redux]

Indeed. If the primary goal of education is "cultural and social", having young people spend a year working on a humanitarian project in a developing country would probably be vastly more effective, and for lower cost and with some lasting benefit to others. Spending hours sitting in classes and doing assignments is hardly efficient for those purposes.

Who says?  You make these statements, Marshy, as if there is some sort of consensus on the subject, which there is not.

"Spending hours sitting in classes and doing assignments" is a great way to learn stuff and to be intellectually challenged, and this is why it is a world-wide practice with a 2,000+ year history.  One might learn basic conversational Central American Spanish and some carpentry skills while building houses in El Salvador, but it is hard to learn to play the cello or do physics.  And this was not what peeps are talking about anyway.

Sure, there are geniuses and unincorporated intellectuals who pursue all sorts of private scholarship.  Can happen.

But they are rare.  It is also possible to do yoga or learn karate or teach yourself to play Chopin on the piano.  Most of us do these things better with mentorship, however.  In fact, most of us need a teacher to guide us, even with YouTube and Wikipedia.

Some institutions and some instructors will figure out ways to be much more effective as remote mentors than others, and will be able to cash in on that in the future. (And lets's face it; there is a lot of lousy face-to-face "mentoring". Think of how many students never interact one-on-one with an instructor, and think of how many instructors hardly ever interact with any student. Here and on the old fora there are lots of conversations about profs getting lots done during office hours because no-one ever comes to them.)

Gosh, you mean a human endeavor is imperfect?  The reason office-hours are dying is email.  There's scant proof the future of ed is online (in fact, evidence suggests students don't want online ed).  And just because a student does not engage in a face-to-face conversation with an instructor does not mean that mentorship is failing; peeps can and do learn lots from these antiquated lecture situations with the sage on the stage.

Typically clueless, off-topic, and antagonist.  I think you need a job outside academia that will make you feel more significant.

[spork]

[. . . ]

I think you need a job outside academia that will make you feel more significant.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Wahoo Redux]

[. . . ]

I think you need a job outside academia that will make you feel more significant.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Not a lady.  Def not Hamlet.  Teaching and scholarship strong; job secure, at least for the moment.

Youthinks wrong.

[Wahoo Redux]

Or do you think Marshy has a point?

That's risible.

[Caracal]

Indeed. If the primary goal of education is "cultural and social", having young people spend a year working on a humanitarian project in a developing country would probably be vastly more effective, and for lower cost and with some lasting benefit to others. Spending hours sitting in classes and doing assignments is hardly efficient for those purposes.

Not what I meant. Colleges exist in a cultural context. They didn't start because somebody ran a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it was the ideal way to prepare 18 year olds for a successful career.

Sure, but the cultural context now is vastly different than it was even 50 years ago due to technology.

Swiss watch companies developed digital watches early on( i.e. before they became popular), but didn't pursue them. Kodak developed digital photography early on, but didn't pursue it. In both of these cases, these market dominators didn't want to undermine their own cash cows (expensive watches and film material and developing costs). They made the mistake of thinking change would not come whether they got involved or not.

Airbnb didn't eliminate the hotel industry, but it certainly affected it. Uber didn't eliminate the taxi industry, but it certainly affected it. In both cases, these companies employed technology to take a bite out of these major industries because, like in the cases of digital watches and photography, the major players weren't willing to undermine their own cash cows, and assumed that change wouldn't come if they held out.

Post-secondary education is in the same boat, and the pandemic has accelerated the development of other options tremendously, whether institutions like it or not. The question is not whether things will change, but how quickly and by how much.

First of all, the entire premise doesn't really make sense. Colleges already offer lots of online courses.

But, beyond that, all of this language of disruption skips the part about these being not for profit institutions. Hotels were a big profitable business, that's why Airbnb wanted to find a new way to take a chunk of it. Colleges aren't designed to make profits for investors. Of course, there are for profit colleges, but all of the problems involved with those just illustrates the point. There's a reason, a University of Phoenix degree doesn't have anywhere near the same value as a degree from even the most obscure college. People believe, rightly, that an institution which is designed to provide value for shareholders, isn't going to supply the same level of educational rigor.

[marshwiggle]

Swiss watch companies developed digital watches early on( i.e. before they became popular), but didn't pursue them. Kodak developed digital photography early on, but didn't pursue it. In both of these cases, these market dominators didn't want to undermine their own cash cows (expensive watches and film material and developing costs). They made the mistake of thinking change would not come whether they got involved or not.

Airbnb didn't eliminate the hotel industry, but it certainly affected it. Uber didn't eliminate the taxi industry, but it certainly affected it. In both cases, these companies employed technology to take a bite out of these major industries because, like in the cases of digital watches and photography, the major players weren't willing to undermine their own cash cows, and assumed that change wouldn't come if they held out.

Post-secondary education is in the same boat, and the pandemic has accelerated the development of other options tremendously, whether institutions like it or not. The question is not whether things will change, but how quickly and by how much.

First of all, the entire premise doesn't really make sense. Colleges already offer lots of online courses.

Maybe my experience is unusual, but in my experience, pre-covid, most places only offered a tiny fraction of their courses online.  (I'd guess 5% or less.)

But, beyond that, all of this language of disruption skips the part about these being not for profit institutions. Hotels were a big profitable business, that's why Airbnb wanted to find a new way to take a chunk of it.

I don't think the founder of Airbnb cared whether hotels were "for profit" or not; just whether they (i.e. Airbnb) could make a profit.

Colleges aren't designed to make profits for investors. Of course, there are for profit colleges, but all of the problems involved with those just illustrates the point. There's a reason, a University of Phoenix degree doesn't have anywhere near the same value as a degree from even the most obscure college. People believe, rightly, that an institution which is designed to provide value for shareholders, isn't going to supply the same level of educational rigor.

Consider what someone above called "cattle-call" courses; i.e. huge lectures with tons of students. These courses are effectively cheap to teach, since one faculty stipend is split among potentially hundreds of students. (TA grading, etc., scales by the number of students if things aren't auto-graded.) Sometimes these courses are even taught by part-time faculty, who are paid even less. These courses effectively subsidize small upper year courses.
Suppose tution is $10000 per year, and each student takes 10 courses. Each course "pays" $1000 per student, but if there are 100 students in the class then that one course effectively brings in $100k but probably only costs about $10k to teach (less if the instructor is part time.)  On the other hand, a 4th year course with 10 students only brings in $10k. If there are less than 10 students, it loses money.

So if an online course can teach 1000 students with one instructor, then it saves money. If the same course can be used at multiple institutions, it gets even cheaper.  If the institution can "buy" that online course for less than $100 per student, they save money, and if the company produces the online course for say, $80 per student they can make 80k for that one course.

(Reminder: All kinds of institutions use the same introductory textbooks, and many include assignments and exams. If lecture delivery is the only "in-house" part of the delivery, it's not a big deal to change that.)

These huge introductory courses, which are similar to those offered at hundreds of other institutions, are the "low-hanging fruit" which online education will most readily displace. It's not about replacing the entire degree; it's about identifying the parts that are easy to deliver at similar quality but lower cost.

Some institutions will see this coming and figure out how to deliver these courses and benefit; others that refuse to see what's going on will eventually suffer for being late to the party.

[Wahoo Redux]

You know that colleges have already tried exactly what you are arguing, right Marshy?