An Educational Extinction Event?(rjlipton.wordpress.com)
rjlipton.wordpress.com
An Educational Extinction Event?
http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/an-educational-extinction-event/
13 comments
Here's another important function of universities: they don't merely provide a good environment for but legitimize taking 4 years out of the workforce and immersing oneself in philosophy, English, mathematics, alcohol, or whatnot. This is probably due to things like the prestige of getting into various schools in the first place, the perception that going away to school makes you more responsible, that it provides a better learning environment than studying at home by yourself, and that you're forced to work at some minimal pace.
Arguably, self-study of undergraduate materials might become the new norm, but until it's feasible for students to really immerse themselves in scholarship over a long period and come out with comparable results to Ivy schools, these institutions don't need to change regardless of progress in the quality of online learning materials and networks. This is really just another form of 'credentialism': until you can actually get an online certification from MIT, not just taking their courses, society (including employers and financiers) won't be very accepting of this. And, of course, given the way the job market is heading for those without university degrees, one would be wise to try borrowing against the cost of a 'good' education rather than trying to work part-time and study over a longer period.
So we are still stuck with the 'credentialism' problem until a new MIT appears and starts administering really tough exams, free of courses ... or something ...
Arguably, self-study of undergraduate materials might become the new norm, but until it's feasible for students to really immerse themselves in scholarship over a long period and come out with comparable results to Ivy schools, these institutions don't need to change regardless of progress in the quality of online learning materials and networks. This is really just another form of 'credentialism': until you can actually get an online certification from MIT, not just taking their courses, society (including employers and financiers) won't be very accepting of this. And, of course, given the way the job market is heading for those without university degrees, one would be wise to try borrowing against the cost of a 'good' education rather than trying to work part-time and study over a longer period.
So we are still stuck with the 'credentialism' problem until a new MIT appears and starts administering really tough exams, free of courses ... or something ...
> you're forced to work at some minimal pace.
Many of the comments here are advocating self-study. I would suggest that an important part of universities (online or traditional) is that you are rewarded and punished according to your output. I feel ashamed to admit it, but I work harder under external motivation. For people like me it's worth paying a university, so I will work hard.
Many of the comments here are advocating self-study. I would suggest that an important part of universities (online or traditional) is that you are rewarded and punished according to your output. I feel ashamed to admit it, but I work harder under external motivation. For people like me it's worth paying a university, so I will work hard.
Does anyone else think that the student loan industry is creating inflation in and around universities? I mean the cost of tuition and books is outpacing inflation. The property markets around those schools remain red hot all the time. I can't help but think that part of the problem here is that 19 and 20 year old kids are able to put their hand on 15-20K in the form of student loans and start outbidding each other for housing, etc.
To me it seems likely that something like the sub prime meltdown could cause the mass EEE.
To me it seems likely that something like the sub prime meltdown could cause the mass EEE.
I've had the same thought. As long as the government keeps expanding the availability of easy and nearly-free credit for education, why wouldn't schools increase the price? Schools are basically competing with each via facilities, dorms, programs, and faculty, rather than cost. Until the total cost of college reaches the earning potential boost it gives you, that inflation seems pretty likely to continue.
Not only that but there is an entire student loan industry ( that Obama wants to get rid of) that has a vested interest in expanding the amount of student debt.
It becomes so easy for a student to justify taking on extra debt to keep from working at a minimum wage job. Year after year the cycle continues but at some point you have to ask is the debt worth the benefit. It seems that for liberal arts majors with advanced degrees it is becoming less justifiable from a cost benefit point of view.
Maybe the bubble will pop when business, engineering, and law degrees aren't able to make back the money spent on the degree.
It becomes so easy for a student to justify taking on extra debt to keep from working at a minimum wage job. Year after year the cycle continues but at some point you have to ask is the debt worth the benefit. It seems that for liberal arts majors with advanced degrees it is becoming less justifiable from a cost benefit point of view.
Maybe the bubble will pop when business, engineering, and law degrees aren't able to make back the money spent on the degree.
I think many colleges will indeed disappear. It's only natural that the college bubble will burst as the number of 4 year colleges has exploded in the last 50 years. But I think universities will be relatively safe; at least the big, prestigious ones.
Universities only partially exist because of education. Most of the hiring is done based on research, and a lot of the funding comes from grants. Yes, part of the money comes from the students. But the movement of the Ivies towards needs-blind admittance in addition to grant-only financial aid (i.e. no loans) means it doesn't matter as much as it does to other universities. And of course, the Ivies have that intangible and resilient allure of prestige. The upper class will always pay for that.
Universities only partially exist because of education. Most of the hiring is done based on research, and a lot of the funding comes from grants. Yes, part of the money comes from the students. But the movement of the Ivies towards needs-blind admittance in addition to grant-only financial aid (i.e. no loans) means it doesn't matter as much as it does to other universities. And of course, the Ivies have that intangible and resilient allure of prestige. The upper class will always pay for that.
If education is a commodity, the university system is doomed. It faces a fairly severe challenge even if it’s not a commodity, but the headlong rush to uniformity and scalability is incompatible with the posh role of the prof.
And I doubt research is the answer absent an intense corporatizing influence that would functionally turn the university into a research arm of industry, which will leave little space for education.
And I doubt research is the answer absent an intense corporatizing influence that would functionally turn the university into a research arm of industry, which will leave little space for education.
Im still thinking of my own thoughts on this topic.
Whilst I try and grapple with this notion and potential implications I would like to ask a question of my fellow HN'ers. ( especially those who have posted so far )
Have you been to university?
Do you have a degree or something else from a university?
I ask these questions as I think its important to get a little background of the person who is posting there views.
I do have a degree in "Information Technology no less Majoring in Data communications".
My gut feeling is, there will always be a place for universities. I further believe there will be a huge growth market in self paced study via the internet which will not be linked primarily to universities. Further more, I want to believe that universities will be geared more towards those who are able to "do it for themselves".
"do it for themselves" - I believe will get taught / inspired at school ( high school etc ) via social networks and via social / console games to a point.
I think the future is bright for learning.
Whilst I try and grapple with this notion and potential implications I would like to ask a question of my fellow HN'ers. ( especially those who have posted so far )
Have you been to university?
Do you have a degree or something else from a university?
I ask these questions as I think its important to get a little background of the person who is posting there views.
I do have a degree in "Information Technology no less Majoring in Data communications".
My gut feeling is, there will always be a place for universities. I further believe there will be a huge growth market in self paced study via the internet which will not be linked primarily to universities. Further more, I want to believe that universities will be geared more towards those who are able to "do it for themselves".
"do it for themselves" - I believe will get taught / inspired at school ( high school etc ) via social networks and via social / console games to a point.
I think the future is bright for learning.
I know this is a technological forum, and that the article proposes that technology will make universities obsolete, but the universities, and in fact all schools are great homogenizers. I reject the notion that people need to become socialized and need to network within a school-like system. This didn't happen two hundred years ago, arguably our nation's hey-day.
When we are all Ramblin' Wrecks or Fighting Illini, sure we're easier to market to, and so business people can make their money, but we're also easier to govern, and let's face it, we're too easy to govern right now. Senators are, with few exceptions, elected for life, and most head to D.C. as paupers and leave as kings. We need more individualism and that is why I reject the premise of two of Lipton's arguments: networking and socialization.
When we are all Ramblin' Wrecks or Fighting Illini, sure we're easier to market to, and so business people can make their money, but we're also easier to govern, and let's face it, we're too easy to govern right now. Senators are, with few exceptions, elected for life, and most head to D.C. as paupers and leave as kings. We need more individualism and that is why I reject the premise of two of Lipton's arguments: networking and socialization.
> most head to D.C. as paupers and leave as kings
Um, most senators head to DC rich and leave richer.
Um, most senators head to DC rich and leave richer.
Educate students -- lecturing doesn't work. Best is working from the best material in small groups of peers and having help available from graduate students.
Socialise students -- learning to get on with people is best done with friends.
Networking -- done online.
Research and innovation -- yes. that's what universities are about.
Optimum path for students is now online self-study undergraduate degree. Can complete quickly or as slowly as required. Then go to university if you want to do a PhD.
Socialise students -- learning to get on with people is best done with friends.
Networking -- done online.
Research and innovation -- yes. that's what universities are about.
Optimum path for students is now online self-study undergraduate degree. Can complete quickly or as slowly as required. Then go to university if you want to do a PhD.
Easy to say "we'll make it available online." Not all that difficult to implement either.
But doing it well so as to be engaging as well as educational is very difficult. On par with finding extraordinary teachers.
There are many instructors at the university level. Then there are those few we all remember. It's no different with online instruction. There's a lot of material already, but then there's those few gems of production that truly educate.
But doing it well so as to be engaging as well as educational is very difficult. On par with finding extraordinary teachers.
There are many instructors at the university level. Then there are those few we all remember. It's no different with online instruction. There's a lot of material already, but then there's those few gems of production that truly educate.
I do think that the problems with higher education are directly related to the drop in standards of our high school system. I get the feeling a revolution in the high school system will go a long way to fixing the focus and need for higher education.
It's very true that problems in high school are (partly) responsible for watering down higher education.
However, universities have vastly more problems than that. They are huge bloated organizations structured around funneling money to employees (from both students and the government) rather than educating students. The main reason people still go is for status signaling purposes, otherwise they would have been replaced long ago.
However, universities have vastly more problems than that. They are huge bloated organizations structured around funneling money to employees (from both students and the government) rather than educating students. The main reason people still go is for status signaling purposes, otherwise they would have been replaced long ago.
One interesting thing about doing educational videos, you can pre-produce a "lecture" and then have the teacher around for Q&A (during - just switch to the live camera/ after).
Of course, I could of have don all of my Chemistry lab work via an online course! I suppose for Liberal Arts classes it may be viable, but not of the sciences.
there is no way that university of phoenix or its ilk will replace major universities. period.
Your argument hasn't convinced me. I think it's only a matter of time before a traditional university dedicates itself to a 'respectable' online component, de-stigmatizing online education and opening bachelor's degrees to the masses. The University of Phoenix might not be the overall winner, but the online business model probably will be. It's just too efficient to lose.
The only major hurdle I see is to convince middle-class young adults that they can still get drunk and hang out with new people while taking the online courses.
The only major hurdle I see is to convince middle-class young adults that they can still get drunk and hang out with new people while taking the online courses.
If you tell them they have to pay $20,000/yr for the privilege of getting drunk and hanging out with new people, I bet they can figure something out a little cheaper...
That's just the thing, though. They don't have to pay, at least not immediately. The credit card and student loan debt of my classmates (class of '09) absolutely blew my mind.
The internet will never replace the live concert. And I believe there is as essential a character to education.
Why do you think that?
It used to be that Higher Education was not something that everyone did. I think that top universities need to migrate back into that space. It could, and maybe should be that students will self-teach (using online resources) undergraduate materials that are essential to "have a degree" and only then join a University if they really want to continue their study of this subject. This will also allow people to progress at whatever pace they're comfortable with, rather than being forced to slow down or speed up to the pace of a specific university.
Undergraduate degrees have basically become a job requirement, something everyone has or should have, when they used to be something that only the elite would have. It's hard to reverse this process, but maybe top universities can retreat one stage further and let the lesser universities fight for the scraps of the undergraduate world.