<p>Look at MITs open coursewear. How amazing is that to have at your own fingertips.</p>
<p><a href=“MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials”>http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm</a></p>
<p>"Unlocking Knowledge…</p>
<p>MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) is a web-based publication of virtually all MIT course content. OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT activity."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above is based on the assumptions that the current funding of direct research activities will continue to increase or remain stable AND that the ROI of such research will remain unchallenged. It also assumes that the relation between research and education remains unchallenged! If one firmly believes in the above stagnation, there is little reason to believe that great research universities will not continue to thrive. But what about the “not so great” universities? Will oodles of money continue to support the lifestyles of people who prefer the life of a researcher over the one of an educator who values the undergraduate education? </p>
<p>In an era of growing MOOCs, reliance on adjuncts, and uncontrolled demand for increased funding, the life of the researcher, and the research universities, will face equal pressures. The real key will be the ability to convince the students and their parents that the degree they are paying for is worth the time and effort! What good does it do a student to walk the grounds of a school where the research divas are mostly absent from the life of a student? What good does it do to attend a “great research” university for years when the job markets rewards a lesser education with equal if not better jobs and salaries? How does a school that costs hundreds of thousands over 4 to 6 years compete with a dedicated technical school that produces coders in a fraction at the time? </p>
<p>Higher education is at a crossroads. And the days of uncontrolled spending and government largesses are mostly over. Families have long passed the acceptable in terms of education expenses, safe and except for the very poor and the very rich. </p>
<p>If mediocre private schools will face an almost certain demise, the same fate might confront the schools that have lived beyond their means or are peddling worthless or overrated products in terms of education AND research. </p>
<p>In the end, the winner will be none other than a performing and relevant educational system. And our schools will be drastically differen with many casualties from every type of schools, and not only LACs and privates! Fewer schools. Shorter cycles. And a lot fewer academic parasites!</p>
<p>@sav agreed. Between opencourseware and coursera (and others) it is amazing. I really liked the Physics lectures on opencoursware and some of the Chemistry ones.</p>
<p>Thank you @xiggi Well said.</p>
<p>That’s my sense. I also see it as a big part of a larger picture of how the tech revolution is going to change the way we live.</p>
<p>It is silly to think the industrial revolution was the final evolution. Clearly this is just not so.</p>
<p>I think we are so used to rapid change we forget that real change may move faster than ever, but the changes in our institutions is beginning to catch up. It is really rather fascinating.</p>
<p>Also, as an aside, I really do feel the tremendous reliance on adjuncts is simply the canary in the proverbial coal mine when it comes to the bricks and mortar education. When a good costs exponentially more and you are getting exponentially less, you may be making more money, but at the expense of your lasting relevance-- JMO </p>
<p>MOOC’s are only one example of online course and not the best, in my experience. I have loved classes in US history and culture online. My kids took online classes in high school for subjects that weren’t offered in the school itself. </p>
<p>My fantasy would be that those who don’t really want to go to college don’t have to, and all of those who do want to go, can, and that everyone, regardless of whether they go or don’t go, can have a wage adequate for living. Online classes help one group, those who want to go but have obstacles, and will be part of the future. But for those of traditional age and who have the means, the traditional campus experience will remain, I think, albeit with some technological enhancements.</p>
<p>work is clearly changing in the US. My oldest works a four day week, but works ten to twelve hour days, and really prefers this. She gets to set the schedule since she’s the creative lead and all of the people who work for her love this way of working. But, the ability to be in touch through tech makes this possible, more than anything else.</p>
<p>Tech lets you be elsewhere but still communicate. How could this not impact education in the long run?</p>
<p>Because education in America is as much about learning skills as it is about becoming a member of a (hopefully exclusive) club which likes to take care of its members. No amount of technology will change clubbishness 
</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see what happens to “the club” as more and more start ups do not come from money and name universities. </p>
<p>I think the fundstarters , kickstarters etc are an excellent way to get backing and get some momentum if you have a good idea and want to run with it.</p>
<p>If you have a computer, have drive and energy, anything is possible for anyone. </p>
<p>Employers are increasingly looking for people who can think. Creativity, talent, logic, collaboration, and all angles of abstract thought are needed in today’s (and tomorrow’s) fast, global, visual and literate communications and economy. Students get more than a credential at a good college. They also get exposed to new ideas, discuss, innovate, perhaps do international travel, etc. They also have something precious which is often blithely devalued today: Time. To have a person clarify and develop their interests, talents, and goals can take a few years. A good brick & mortar college provides this. Perhaps, as an above poster muses, the “divide” will just widen. Already there is a divide between the student who goes to West Directional Nowhere U for what is essentially a vocational experience (along with the beer & circus) and the student who goes to a top 200 school. In the future there may be a divide between Johnny with his online degree pounded out in a year and a half and Jane’s degree from a 4-year quality school. I think that the brick & mortar grad will get the pick more often than not.</p>
<p>No one would read the article were it to posit something likely, such as, “online courses appeal as low-cost, convenient options for working students.” That’s happening today. There is, however, a huge difference between a degree from The University of Phoenix and a degree from Duke. </p>
<p>With the rise of the mass affluent in our country, there are ever more families able to pay the tuition. Tuition is rising due to greater demand, at least for the established names. There is a drop-off in demand after a certain level of prestige. I’ve taken many college tours by this point. Students and parents on the tour frequently ask about things which have nothing to do with college academics: food, social life, foreign travel, sports, internships. </p>
<p>Certainly, technology is present; it’s been a factor for students for some time, though. MOOCS are not new, by the standards of the tech world. The track record is not good in terms of course completion. The most fragile students–those with deficient skills–tend to do worst. It’s not a panacea. </p>
<p>I fear a splintering of the market along class lines, to a much greater degree than today. </p>
<p>While I see your points as potentially valid, I also see the way this Harvard Business School prof in the article sees it as perhaps more interesting and more nuanced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is also an interesting challenge to those who believe the technology will create a divide and that the bricks and mortar experience will remain superior. It may not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Other Harvard professors do not agree with Christensen. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine[/url]”>What the Gospel of Innovation Gets Wrong | The New Yorker;
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure how I feel right now about on-line education - I think that I think it works for some people but some people need the live dialogue. I do agree that colleges need to differentiate themselves, whether it’s on price, or location or campus, or access of something. Whether they need to be “disruptive” is questionable, they may be “disruptive” simply because they understand their product and it flies in the face of the competition. They may be ‘distruptive’ simply because the brand is so strong it has stood the test of time and continues to deliver. Back when I was looking for colleges I was looking for colleges with specific feel and with specific majors and with specific specialties within that major and a specific size and the list was short. Now colleges seem to deliver majors that in many cases can barely be differentiated. Everything feels monochromatic as you go through the visits. I still can’t tell or really remember the ‘difference’ between Bucknell and Lafayette from visits with my third son, I get them confused all the time. They ask the “why me” question but students are stumped because there are hundreds of colleges where there answer could be identical. As much as some people turn their nose up at the word “experience” and sleep away colleges I’d back a college with happy alumni who give generously - tells me they had a great experience and tells me they are doing well enough in life to endow generously. My oldest went to a sleeper of one of at the at the time public liberal arts colleges that is just that. He could have gotten into far, far better USNWR colleges (and he did) but this college sold itself well on it’s time tested uniqueness AND delivered and he never lived in our basement post-graduation. That’s marketing. That’s value and that’s a vision statement that doesn’t need to be tweaked and that’s brand equity. I can’t imagine this college trying to market itself through on-line courses and the such in any near future.</p>
<p>@Periwinkle Thanks. That’s an interesting take on that line of thought. I appreciate it.</p>
<p>I don’t pretend to know where all of this is heading, except to know that where it is heading is most certainly, like all things, not to the place where it is right now. I think if we examine it top down, we can see why anyone involved in the business school business is going to see the upside to tech, given that the executive MBAs, at even the top schools, are heavily tech based. </p>
<p>Either way, the current model is likely unsustainable. </p>
<p>I like the idea of lots of varied delivery methods for varying reasons which answer varying issues colleges face today. </p>
<ol>
<li> They are too expensive.</li>
<li> They are attempting to serve several masters.</li>
<li> The audience, customer, has varied needs and wants they can meet more effectively with different methods.</li>
<li> A smaller, more flexible, less administratively heavy institution can adapt to the changing needs of the environment more effectively.</li>
</ol>
<p>All that said, as the old saying goes, “Change takes an instant. Resistance to change can take a lifetime.”</p>
<p>Adapt or die.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with Periwinkle and others that see the rise of online education as class stratifying.
Much of the value of both of my kids’ education came from person-to-person interaction. From the archaeology lab where Dd was able to pour over artifacts alongside her professor to my son’s on-site evaluation of his campus’s energy conservation measures, each of them benefited from being part of their college community- not just socially, but academically. And of course, socially. No where else in their lives will they have the opportunity to mix with and learn from such a diverse group of people.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s just because it hasn’t been done yet, but it’s very hard for me to imagine an online experience that would come close to what each of my kids had at their respective colleges. Why would one not go after this if they had the choice? And that is to say nothing of the personal connections - friends, future spouses, mentors- that we all know are very important and tend to be beneficial throughout our lives. </p>
<p>The idea of an online degree just feels so empty and limited. </p>
<p>“To take it a step further companies will increase their use of consultants and virtual employees. If the job can be done on line it will be given to the best bid in the world. Companies will be more interested in your ability to do a specific job and will look at ability and past work rather than diplomas.”</p>
<p>Sax, since you brought this up, you probably know this is already happening.</p>
<p>I hear second hand its a mixed bag. The bidders bid up online and end up with low paid work. One person I know did end up with a job offer with a legal firm.</p>
<p>What are you seeing?</p>
<p>Here is one site.</p>
<p><a href=“TaskRabbit connects you to safe and reliable help in your neighborhood”>https://www.taskrabbit.com/how-it-works</a></p>
<p>@moonchild I really don’t disagree with what you are saying about that all.</p>
<p>But, I would rather shop at independent bookstores, and I think banks were better when they were locally owned and locally run. I’d rather shop at the local grocer owned grocer and I tend to choose the produce stand. I think a bar counter at the small town coffee shop is more personal than a starbucks, and the local tavern was probably a really wonderful thing, too.</p>
<p>I think the world was probably better when people knocked on each other’s doors and kids rode their bikes through the neighborhood and knocked on doors to find out who could come out and play and everyone played in the local park and knew their neighbors. </p>
<p>But that’s not our kids’ world, and I don’t think we are moving more in that direction.</p>
<p>I will be interested to see how it goes.</p>
<p>I think the world is moving in that direction, too. I just think that there will always be the Rolls Royce’s of education, and that those who can afford it will tend to go. Unless the online option completely eclipses the traditional college education to the point that it’s no longer viable to maintain buildings, those who can afford it will attend the schools where networking and personal contacts are part of the deal- further separating our rapidly stratifying classes. </p>
<p>Because, as Alexander Pope said, “whatever is, is right.” Right? If this is the way it’s going, it reallly doesn’t matter if it 's a good, or not. It just is.</p>
<p>Deal with it.</p>
<p>Cuz it’s “interesting.” and “disruptive”.</p>
<p>Don’t question it. Whatever is, is right.</p>