<p>"students receive all the support they need to assist them with their studies"</p>
<p>How is this established as fact? Does ajue determine what they need? How many students do you have in a typical on-line web classroom oral (not text messaging) discussion with the professor? In what ways is it superior to the classroom?</p>
<p>I just don't believe the premise of the article. Technology can make some businesses more efficient and can do the same tasks cheaper. Manufacturing, for one example. But the applications in education are different. Oh, sure, technology can make billing and student administration cheaper, so you may have fewer people needed in administrative areas. It can ease some of the demand for hard-copy library materials. But technology doesn't replace faculty. It doesn't substantially alter the number of hours a class needs to meet, or the need for facilities and supplies. </p>
<p>We make this point to our state legislators every year--we must invest heavily in technology, but it's not generally the kind that increases productivity.</p>
<p>As the article</a> suggests, addressing inflation+ increases in college costs is not zero-sum; i.e. exploiting the efficiencies of technology doesn't have to sacrifice quality.</p>
<p>There is a hierarchy of education that goes on in higher education: the acquisition of facts, knowledge and wisdom. Direct interactions with a professor, say in developing critical thinking skills (wisdom) via the Socratic</a> Method, can be emphasized if cost reductions are realized in the non-value added portion of the education spectrum (facts and some, but not all, knowledge).</p>
<p>More food for thought: Here's a TED video showcasing research being conducted on how children learn. It offers non-conventional thinking on self-organizing learning environments without teacher interaction:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sugata</a> Mitra: Can kids teach themselves?</p>
<p>Speaking at LIFT 2007, Sugata Mitra talks about his Hole in the Wall project. Young kids in this project figured out how to use a PC on their own -- and then taught other kids. He asks, what else can children teach themselves?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
You've heard of graduate teaching assistants, haven't you? I believe most professors also have secretaries, and don't personally write the textbooks they use in class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>TAs can help keep costs down but not in a significant way; you still need professors to do most of the teaching as well as supervise TAs.</p>
<p>Most professors do not have secretaries. I can't speak for Harvard, but at all the universities I've been at as a student, a professor, and as an administrator, there is generally one or two secretaries for the entire department. Most professors do their own "secretarial" work.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how whether or not professors write the textbooks they use in class enters into this equation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is this established as fact? Does ajue determine what they need? How many students do you have in a typical on-line web classroom oral (not text messaging) discussion with the professor? In what ways is it superior to the classroom?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Although I'm sure there are some fields that can be taught on-line, in my opinion many cannot. In my field, history, the give and take of discussion is extremely important. This discussion reminds me of a conference I was at about 10 years ago. The Western states were putting together a consortium for distance education called The Western Governors University or some such thing. (I have no idea if this ever came to fruition.) Anyway, the rep who was trying to convince us all that this was a good idea was singing the praises of efficiency in all fields. When asked how one teaches poetry on-line, the rep said "perhaps poetry doesn't need to be taught at universities." Needless to say he lost his audience right there and there.</p>
<p>Secretaries went away when computers came in.
Technology has made education more expensive. Labs are an enormous cost.
As for teaching more efficiently and achieving economies of scale as in industry, don't parents want their kids in small classes where the prof knows everyone by name and calls students when they overslept?</p>
<p>Exactly, Marite! You can leverage a professor by adding more seats into a classroom and hiring TAs to teach help sessions and grade papers (especially if the tests are all multiple choice/bubble in the answer types). In fact, the teacher can teach to a class of 1,000 (and Harvard has had a few classes like this). In fact, you could leverage the teacher even further by putting the lectures on line so that you would not be constrained by how many kids you could squeeze into a giant lecture hall.</p>
<p>But that's not what most people want in an educational experience.</p>
<p>Also agree that labs would be an enormous expense and would be harder to leverage with technology. I've seen some "virtual labs." Who are they kidding?!!</p>
<p>tokenadult:</p>
<p>How much input profs have in the textbooks that bear their names surely depends on the discipline. I'm pretty sure that profs in the humanities and social sciences write their own monographs.</p>
<p>Technology often begets more technology. Look at how much college websites have changed over the years. These things cost time and money.</p>
<p>Garland is absolutely right. Anyone who thinks that technology will replace classroom interaction is deluding themselves. It might work in one or two subjects with a highly motivated student, but the vast majority of students I've encountered are not highly motivated, particularly not in areas like required courses where they would be tempted to use technology. Technology is great is a few exceptional circumstances, but it will not and should not replace a teacher/professor facing the students each class period or the group interaction in a class. Most parents would rebel at their tuition money going for entirely on-line instruction. And I'm also afraid it will be a long time before any degree from an online university will equal a degree from a regular university.</p>
<p>The latest technology is not cheap. Campus computers have to be replaced regularly in order not to be outdated. Servers and networks have to be maintained and upgraded. Campus computing facilites have to be made easily available to students. </p>
<p>H & I are both college professors, one of us in a so-called "highly paid" discipline. Morrismm's statistics from the Chronicle are very much in line with what we have experienced in several public and private institutions in 3 different states. At every one, the salaries of new hires, particularly in in-demand disciplines, were often on a par with or even higher than tenured faculty. States have over many years generally cut budgets over and over to state universities, causing faculty salaries to stagnate. </p>
<p>Granted we live in a relatively low-cost middle state, but at various times when he or I were interviewing for positions on either coast, the salaries offered were never enough bigger to compensate for the much higher cost of living. We always were able to go for an alternative in the middle and have never had to resort to a long-distance commute for either of us. I work with college professors, and only the most senior one I know, makes much over $100,000 (in a large flag ship), after 30+ years with the university. He does make significant royalties from a textbook he wrote, now in its 7th edition. </p>
<p>As Morrismm says, nobody goes into teaching for the money, at any level. Several of my son's hs teachers made more than either H or I. Nowadays, one must also throw into the pot that college professors have received a Ph.D., usually after 8 or 9 years of study and perhaps with significant college loans.</p>
<p>In our typical middle class NJ town we pay our elementary school gym teachers (with 20 years experience) $88K per year for 180 days work with guaranteed employment and a retirement/benefit package to die for. And we pay them even more if they coach sports or run EC's. </p>
<p>Forgive me if I turn a deaf ear to pleadings concerning the financial plight of teachers.</p>
<p>Via Inside</a> Higher Ed:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Changing</a> the Tuition Discussion</p>
<p>If tuition policy is a vexed question in normal budget years for public universities, it will be especially challenging to discuss public policy on the subject this year. States are facing record deficits and many public colleges are seeing enrollment and application increases — a formula that could combine to create large, unpopular tuition increases.</p>
<p>In this environment, the leaders of a national association of public universities hope to shift the debate — calling for better information about what really is going on with college costs, and also urging colleges to consider some potentially radical ways to control their costs. “University</a> Tuition, Consumer Choice and College Affordability,” being released today by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, both defends public higher education and criticizes it. While suggesting that colleges are more affordable than many people realize today, the report sees a “looming affordability challenge” in which public institutions could move out of the reach of many Americans, a potential shift that the association sees as counter to the values of its institutions...
[/quote]
</p>