"The End of the University as we know it"

[Wildwood11]

<p>

In 25 years the leaders of tomorrow will still be receiving their 4-year degrees from elite residential colleges such as Harvard and Yale, Amherst and CalTech and the like. And hundreds of thousands of poorly prepared high school graduates will still be attending the local CCs for a year or two of developmental education. MOOCs for the rest of us, but don’t expect them to be free or even low-cost.

</p>

<p>You’re entitled to your prediction but here’s why I think you’re off. Nowhere does the author suggest the complete end to universities and campuses, just a huge shake out with many lesser institutions folding. It’s simple economics. Yes, there will always be super-rich willing to pay whatever cost for a luxury degree, but demand for that experience will decline greatly as much lower-cost alternatives grow in respect and acceptance. I believe that at some point Harvard et al. will not even be offering a four-year residential experience. I think it is much more likely that the elites will offer still very coveted spots to students who have proven themselves in online coursework, with whatever prerequisites and holistic attributes, to come and spend a year studying and researching under a top scholar in their chosen field. With most transformational change there is an identifiable tipping point when a critical mass adopts the new model. The decline of the old model accelerates as it loses its appeal for consumers. Elite colleges are wisely taking the lead right now to avoid getting caught unprepared when the number of applications for a $250,0000–no wait in ten years–$350,0000? $500,000? degree drops precipitously. They will also be in the forefront in offering flexible models for credentialing in a couple of decades.</p>

<p>

Although I am enthusiastic about the potential of online courses, they have been around in at least some form for a long time. Patrick Suppes, now professor emeritus at Stanford, has worked on computerized online instruction since the 1960s, as documented at the Collected Works of Patrick Suppes . Students at a Palo Alto elementary school used a terminal connected by phone to computers at Stanford to study math. He helped create the EPGY Courses that my kids use today. It is worth thinking about why most education is still conducted in person in a synchronous manner (all students in the class are on the same topic), when “programmed instruction” is an old idea.

</p>

<p>Just because they haven’t worked well enough to become mainstream in the past, doesn’t mean that the improvement in technology won’t transform the learning of the future. A lot has changed since the 1960s. Twenty years ago, few people had email, most doubted not only the proliferation of digital photos (as opposed to their beloved snapshot albums), but also the viability of ebooks, personal phones and, of course, unmanned war machines. Many still doubt that we will all be moving around in self-driven cars (inevitable) and even that electric cars will become the norm (it’s closer than you think).</p>

<p>

Students could go test centers for mid-term and final exams, just as they do now for the SAT. This would cost money, but I don’t expect online education to be free for credential-seekers.

</p>

<p>This, and I also posted recently an article about online proctoring, where the test-taker is on webcam and his computer screen is monitored. There are all kinds of yet-to-be discovered solutions. Obviously, plagiarism will be quite difficult when every piece of student and academic writing is in a searchable database that immediately catches it.</p>

<p>

A more direct analogy would be the way that digital technology, song sharing, YouTube downloading, etc. has undermined and destroyed live music performances … only that hasn’t happened.

</p>

<p>I’ve never seen any serious technologists predict the demise of live performance with the changes in the music industry. On the contrary, that is how musicians will have to make the bulk of their income in the future as open access to music making and distribution will continue to cut into their royalties. What digital sharing has done and will continue to do is squeeze out the middlemen…“the gatekeepers” and promote real competition where the most “upvoted” music is the most successful and tours for those artists are rewarded. Online lecturers will be treated this way. Some will have a massive following and others will serve niche tastes. There may always be a demand for hearing them speak in person on a lecture circuit.</p>

[Cardinal_Fang]

<p>Online courses might also be a way for professors to find promising grad students/research assistants.</p>

[bethievt]

<p>My sister earned a Masters through a hybrid of online learning and periodic intense time on a campus. From what she’s told me, it was a really valuable experience and the credential she received was well-deserved. This is an exciting development and the glitches will be worked out over time. I’m grateful that we could give our son 4 years on a campus, but the system is not sustainable.</p>

<p>I remember at some point in elementary school, my school tried out programed reading instruction. I think it was called SRA. No computers then, but students could go at their own pace, would take a little comprehension test and move on. I absolutely loved it and I’m sure it allowed the teacher to spend more time with the students who needed more help. Of course, it was discontinued. My point being, we need to be smarter about how we deliver education.</p>

[gladiatorbird]

<p>^HAH–blast from the past. I remember SRA…would never have recalled it, but for your reference. I absolutely loved SRA. It was an innovative, fun, self-paced approach that offered elementary school kids an intoxicating, and at that time likely unprecedented, taste of autonomy.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>Re: SRA materials</p>

<p>Looks like they are still available:
<a href=“Leveled Readers | SRA Reading Labs | McGraw Hill”>Leveled Readers | SRA Reading Labs | McGraw Hill;

[BobWallace]

<p>

I’ve never seen any serious technologists predict the demise of live performance with the changes in the music industry.

</p>

<p>Yes, my point exactly.</p>

<p>And yet here we have this article full of outlandish predictions along similar lines for education. Your counter arguments miss the point entirely - the analogue to live performance is the residential college experience. mp3’s do not supplant concerts any more than online learning will supplant traditional college.</p>

<p>His analogies are grossly misplaced - the digital music one already mentioned, and even worse his red herring about Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Done in by the Internet and online trading? Utter nonsense - they were done in by deregulation and reckless speculation, especially on garbage mortgage derivatives.</p>

<p>I can foresee a very different outcome from technology - it will not cause the collapse of colleges, it will give them a cost-saving measure they are going to need in the face of lending reform. Top schools currently feel obligated to dole out massive financial aid to students who can’t afford to attend, but with online proxy education available they will have a cheap out for students who can’t afford them. Those students will be relegated to the free/cheap online route, and no more upper class guilt funding massive financial aid. Online degrees will be “tiered” like everything else in education, and will be considered 2nd-rate by rankings and Joe Public, just as less famous/rich schools are now. The current efforts to distinctively rebrand and segregate (edX, Coursera, etc., not eHarvard) align with this route. This is much more realistically aligned with human nature and history than all this “everyone gets to go to Harvard thanks to the miracle of the Interwebs” stuff. Brick-and-mortar universities will survive just as brick-and-mortar stores have.</p>

[skrlvr]

<p>SRA:</p>

<p>I remember the textbooks all had a certain color. I remember ‘A Pig can Jig’ and ‘Tom has a red plum, red plum, red plum. Tom has a red plum. Yum Yum Yum’.</p>

[bethievt]

<p>The SRA readings were so much more interesting than Dick and Jane and their dog and cat. All I can think of is Spot and Puff. That can hardly be right. Was the first word we learned LOOK? When I read the Little House books, I realized that kids were allowed to progress at their own pace in the one room schoolhouses. I now have a French nephew and he said they were allowed to skip forward and move back, according to their needs. And I remember that SRA lessons had colors.</p>

[kelijake1987]

<p>!^^thanks for the SRA trip down memory lane!!</p>

[glido]

<p>"This means we should advise all those disappointed applicants rejected by Harvard to just take a gap decade. Simply bum around Europe or take it easy for 10 years and then just waltz right in with no questions asked. " - coureur</p>

<p>Love this!</p>

[Wildwood11]

<p>

And yet here we have this article full of outlandish predictions along similar lines for education. Your counter arguments miss the point entirely - the analogue to live performance is the residential college experience. mp3’s do not supplant concerts any more than online learning will supplant traditional college.

</p>

<p>I don’t agree that live music performance is analogous to the residential college experience at all. The purpose, motivation, investment and expected return on both are entirely different. Again, I think a concert is better compared to a live lecture. The four-year model will disappear when it is a stretch for even the upper-middle class to justify the investment. Although there may be enough super-rich people to pay for slots in the dozens of most prestigious colleges, there are not enough extremely qualified super-rich people to fill them. I feel pretty confident that Harvard would rather offer four times as many places to top-notch students from all over the world (yes it may mean a higher percentage of internationals in the future) than dilute its brand with the reputation of only being accessible the top .1% As rich as it is, it cannot sustain subsidizing every student that cannot meet the $500.000 or more price tag. Imagine other schools without such an endowment. Meanwhile, middle-class families may still be willing to shell out $100,000+ for year with a top scholar. So, no one will be spending four years at HYPSM as an undergraduate because those schools will not allow them to. On the other hand, with regard to employers, do you really think the perceived value of a four-year country-club education will be greater than one earned by a self-motivated kid who has accumulated an array of certificates (or a particular degree) in known-to-be tough online courses?</p>

<p>Some people seem to be overly sentimental about the four-year residential college tradition. But I’ve learned the hard way that practicality always wins out over sentimentality in the long run. People adapt more easily that they think they will to major change once they have to. There are lots of ways that 18 to 22-year-olds can have great learning and social experiences as they transition into independent adults that don’t include four years at Camp College. Time abroad, on community service projects, in local organizations for sports, music, theater, social events, etc. They can travel the world or become a leader in their own community all while taking online courses. There need be no loss of intellectual engagement with peers, they can get plenty either online or through local groups. Sure traditional frat parties and the hook-up dorm culture may disappear, but alas, some things gained, some things lost.</p>

[moonchild]

<p>

I can foresee a very different outcome from technology - it will not cause the collapse of colleges, it will give them a cost-saving measure they are going to need in the face of lending reform. Top schools currently feel obligated to dole out massive financial aid to students who can’t afford to attend, but with online proxy education available they will have a cheap out for students who can’t afford them.

</p>

<p>This is the way I see it, too. The top schools will survive, not just the super-elites, although the lower tier ones may not. But they probably won’t anyway, as they are already having a hard time getting customers.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@Wildwood11

There are lots of ways that 18 to 22-year-olds can have great learning and social experiences as they transition into independent adults that don’t include four years at Camp College.

I agree. Technologists, for example, may gravitate to “hacker hostels”, as profiled in an NYT story: [Crammed</a> Into Cheap Bunks, Dreaming of Future Digital Glory](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/technology/at-hacker-hostels-living-on-the-cheap-and-dreaming-of-digital-glory.html]Crammed”>At ‘Hacker Hostels,’ Living on the Cheap and Dreaming of Digital Glory - The New York Times) .</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

I don’t agree that live music performance is analogous to the residential college experience at all … I think a concert is better compared to a live lecture.

</p>

<p>Well, you are not buying my analogy and I’m certainly not buying yours …</p>

<p>Of course, we see predictions like this all the time - movies were going to be the death of books, TV was going to be the death of radio and movies, satellite TV was going to be the death of cable, e-commerce was going to be the death of retail stores, and so on. Your argument holds no more water than those.</p>

<p>There are certainly instances where technology advances completely turn a market or industry on its head, CDs over LPs, autos over horses, solid state over tubes, digital computers over analog, etc. These are generally cases where the disruptive technology is fundamentally superior to the previous standard. This is hardly the case for online instruction vs. in person. In fact, the same arguments made for the destruction of residential college by online instruction can be made for destruction of the modern office by videoconferencing, email, etc. Most office work could be done at home by workers with laptops and Internet, and the company could save the money spent on office floor space and upkeep or rent - so why hasn’t the modern office disappeared?</p>

[notrichenough]

<p>

As rich as it is, it [Harvard] cannot sustain subsidizing every student that cannot meet the $500.000 or more price tag.

You have to stop using Harvard as an example.</p>

<p>Harvard could be completely free right now for every attendee for 1% of their endowment per year. This is sustainable forever, even if the price doubles or triples.</p>

<p>Harvard also gets 30,000 apps for 1500 spots. I’m pretty sure they could find 1500 qualified students out of that pile that could afford full price.</p>

[Wildwood11]

<p>

Of course, we see predictions like this all the time - movies were going to be the death of books, TV was going to be the death of radio and movies, satellite TV was going to be the death of cable, e-commerce was going to be the death of retail stores, and so on. Your argument holds no more water than those.

</p>

<p>But again, you are making a false analogy. I doubt many predicted the end to books or movies or radio–just that the delivery system model would radically change. And it has. That is what I and many others are saying about education. Learning will never go out of style, but how people access it will.</p>

<p>Think about letter writing and email. Many people hate to imagine the end of the U.S. postal service. But end it will–at least as we know it. No more 6-day delivery service and unified stamp rates. USPS may evolve into something like UPS or Fedex, but many, many people have dropped letter-writing altogether (much to the chagrin of old-timers and traditionalists). You’d be hard-pressed to find many people under 30 who write paper letters (and very few that know how to write in cursive). As businesses see less of a return on mailings than web ads, that source of income will dry up too. </p>

<p>Cable television will be totally different in 10 years as those companies will only survive if they offer on demand streaming and unbundled “channels”. It is happening now among the youth, very few young people have any intention of ever subscribing to cable because they have found the internet streaming alternative to be so much better. Just because there are many that resist change and stick to the old ways out of convenience (and sentimentality) doesn’t mean that eventually the new model won’t become mainstream.</p>

<p>

These are generally cases where the disruptive technology is fundamentally superior to the previous standard. This is hardly the case for online instruction vs. in person.

</p>

<p>And this is the great flaw of your argument for the status quo–conventional wisdom for many but patently false. Well-designed and implemented online instruction has learning outcomes at least as good as in-person instruction and this is only going to improve:</p>

<p>[Findings</a> give boost to online classes - Metro - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/21/findings-give-boost-online-classes/qtokLQeQZvE85EMzSBG6PM/story.html]Findings”>http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/05/21/findings-give-boost-online-classes/qtokLQeQZvE85EMzSBG6PM/story.html)</p>

<p>Add to this lower costs and greater convenience and it becomes clearly superior.</p>

<p>(For the record–I believe primary and secondary schools will always exist with teachers as facilitators and supporters of online instruction.)</p>

<p>

In fact, the same arguments made for the destruction of residential college by online instruction can be made for destruction of the modern office by videoconferencing, email, etc. Most office work could be done at home by workers with laptops and Internet, and the company could save the money spent on office floor space and upkeep or rent - so why hasn’t the modern office disappeared?

</p>

<p>It seems you haven’t been following recent trends closely as I have. Telecommuting is very much on the rise and it is greatly preferred by those who have experimented with it. Just because the transition may take decades, you can’t say these changes will never materialize. </p>

<p>[The</a> Rise of Telework and What it Means | Newgeography.com](<a href=“http://www.newgeography.com/content/003082-the-rise-telework-and-what-it-means]The”>The Rise of Telework and What it Means | Newgeography.com)</p>

<p>[Telecommuting</a> becoming more prevalent —US survey | SciTech | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere](<a href=“http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/251787/scitech/technology/telecommuting-becoming-more-prevalent-us-survey]Telecommuting”>Telecommuting becoming more prevalent —US survey | GMA News Online)</p>

<p>I have nothing against communal living, especially for young people, there is just no reason that it has to be tied to a college education. Those families that want those experiences for their young adults will be able to find them, just not at Harvard and its peer institutions.</p>

[Wildwood11]

<p>

You have to stop using Harvard as an example.

</p>

<p>I have been using Harvard as example because it is so rich and prestigious that it is in the best position of any school to keep the current model. But it won’t. As long as its brand loses no luster, it will be happy to bestow four times as many credentials for those top students from around the world that come and spend a year on campus. Right now, along with the rest of the very top colleges, it is at the forefront of experimenting with new ways of delivering education because it has enough far-sighted people to understand the inevitability of change.</p>

<p>

Harvard could be completely free right now for every attendee for 1% of their endowment per year. This is sustainable forever, even if the price doubles or triples.

</p>

<p>With the financial crisis, Harvard very publicly cut back in certain services. It chooses not to spend all it’s endowment income on financial aid and there is no reason to think it will change that policy. And as the cost for four years continues to rise well past inflation, it
will be harder for HYP to maintain the level of middle-income subsidies they now offer.</p>

<p>

Harvard also gets 30,000 apps for 1500 spots. I’m pretty sure they could find 1500 qualified students out of that pile that could afford full price.

</p>

<p>Even if it were true that the demand for a four-year experience with its future price tag held proportionately steady (something I doubt once high-value alternatives are freely available), Harvard will never want to be seen as only serving those with the money to pay for that model.</p>

<p>Again we’re talking a fairly long way off in the future. I don’t know if it will be 20, 30 or 50 years for all this to play out, but I’m quite sure something like what the author has described will be the reality at some point.</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

But again, you are making a false analogy.

</p>

<p>Really? A “false” analogy? No one in the history of the world has ever made an overly exuberant prediction about the impact of a new technology and been wrong? Is that really your argument? You sound more like a religious zealot than someone who wants to seriously discuss the point.</p>

<p>

And this is the great flaw of your argument for the status quo–conventional wisdom for many but patently false.

</p>

<p>More zealot speak - “patently false”. I’m speaking from my personal experience, that the online training, etc. that I have taken has been a miserable experience compared to a normal classroom experience. I know for certain that the statement “all online teaching is better than all classroom teaching” is “patently false”.</p>

<p>Not being a zealot on the subject, merely an observer who takes exuberant predictions skeptically, I’m willing to entertain the notion that I have been exposed to poor examples of online teaching and that better ones can compete with personal instruction. The question then becomes what will win out in the marketplace? I’ll make another analogy that you can instantly pronounce as patently false: NFL football. I can watch any game I want at home and see better, know better what’s going on, rewind and replay, pause, drink my own beer and eat my own pretzels, never wait in line for the bathroom, and yet there is still a huge demand to see games in person. That demand for the “in person” college experience will remain as well. Now pronounce my analogy 100% patently false with your usual zeal.</p>

<p>

It seems you haven’t been following recent trends closely as I have. Telecommuting is very much on the rise …

</p>

<p>Yeah, at last count I believe 2.5% of US workers were telecommuters. If you are arguing that eventually 2.5% of college credits will be earned online, I can believe that.
.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>I was a science major at college. I was a dedicated student, but I never went to professors’ office hours. My classmates and I went to class and took notes, but otherwise we taught ourselves the material by reading the textbooks doing problem sets. If I had studied from home and viewed video lectures, the inability to ask professors questions in class would have been a loss, but a bigger loss would have been the loss of camaraderie with fellow majors and the isolation while doing problem sets, where much of the learning gets done.</p>

<p>Students who are taking advanced math or physics courses online will benefit from meeting other such students. MOOCs are creating online forums, but they may not fully compensate. Maybe the students from Chicago (say) who are taking a quantum mechanics MOOC will organize a weekly meeting themselves, or maybe videoconferencing will make physical meetings unnecessary.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@BobWallace

I can watch any game I want at home and see better, know better what’s going on, rewind and replay, pause, drink my own beer and eat my own pretzels, never wait in line for the bathroom, and yet there is still a huge demand to see games in person.

Yes, but the vast majority of game watchers are doing so at home, not in the stands. Those who want a social experience may invite friends over to watch or go to a sports bar. They can do the same thing at the stadium if they can afford a luxury box. Football tickets are a luxury good. This may become true of residential college attendance.</p>