"The End of the University as we know it"

[Wildwood11]

<p>

So, the prediction was “Paperless office by end of 20th century.” That prediction has proven horribly, tragically wrong, as all the data show.

</p>

<p>I can’t believe you are using this as evidence that predictions of future technological trends can be so wrong—because this one isn’t!! So the timeline was off–we are still trending that way! I’d really like to see the original prediction–couldn’t find The Economist article from 1980. But geez, because one (until you prove otherwise) 1980 forecast, before email or cloud computing was even mainstream, was off by a couple of decades, that is proof that all predictions are meaningless?</p>

<p>

If you want to water down the prediction for online courses to “online education will grow in some contexts”, most everyone acknowledges that, and apparently you’ll take that outcome as a win for “online education will end the university as we know it”.

</p>

<p>No, sorry, I totally subscribe to the author’s vision for about 2040, give or take 10 years. As marybee333 suggested, we could just agree to come back to this discussion in 10 or 20 years and see how things are going.</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

what exactly did you mean when you said that online learning was hardly fundamentally superior to in-person instruction so as to become a disruptive technology?

</p>

<p>I meant that online learning is not fundamentally superior to in-person instruction so as to become a disruptive technology.</p>

<p>

I can’t believe you are using this as evidence that predictions of future technological trends can be so wrong—because this one isn’t!!

</p>

<p>You seem to have great difficulty separating extrapolations and fantasies in your own head from reality. A paperless office was predicted. More paper was used, not less. More paper is still used, not less. Zero paper was predicted to be used, but not only did we not get to zero, we went the other direction for 30 years. Recently, there has been a downward trend, not enough to get us back to the original level, still more paper being used. And you call that a correct prediction for a paperless office?</p>

<p>So if, for the next 30 years, residential college numbers continue to increase and then start to trend slightly downward, but are still at much higher levels than today, you will declare victory for online learning? Is that it?</p>

<p>

But geez, because one (until you prove otherwise) 1980 forecast, before email or cloud computing was even mainstream, was off by a couple of decades, that is proof that all predictions are meaningless?

</p>

<p>Again, you choose to manufacture fantastic gibberish in your own head and try to make it into reality. I have presented several examples of technologies predicted to be disruptive that both did and did not live up to their predicted hype, so it’s obvious to anyone who is able to apprehend what I write that I do not believe “all predictions are meaningless” and I have certainly not asserted to prove it. You issued the challenge to produce an example of a failed prediction, because (apparently) you believe that all predictions by experts come true. Only one counter example is necessary to disprove an absolute, and it’s certainly not worth providing another one to you since you’ll just say it came true even if it didn’t, as in the paperless office prediction.</p>

[Wildwood11]

<p>

And you call that a correct prediction for a paperless office?

</p>

<p>I think we continue to move toward the paperless office of the future, so, yes, I consider the prediction correct although the time frame was wrong. </p>

<p>

Again, you choose to manufacture fantastic gibberish in your own head and try to make it into reality. I have presented several examples of technologies predicted to be disruptive that both did and did not live up to their predicted hype

</p>

<p>I believe you’ve done no such thing, you’ve mentioned a few technologies but provided no evidence of the original predictions you say have failed.</p>

<p>Bob Wallace:

I meant that online learning is not fundamentally superior to in-person instruction so as to become a disruptive technology.

</p>

<p>And so how is what I said “a lie”?:</p>

<p>

I interpret this as you saying that online instruction cannot be superior to the in-person experience (now or apparently 20+ years from now).

</p>

<p>I will not engage with you anymore Bob Wallace. You are incredibly insulting and incapable of having a reasonable debate without aggressively attacking me.</p>

<p>Plus, it’s Christmas Eve and I need to exercise more holiday spirit.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@CTScoutmom

The role I see for online classes is similar - you still attend a physical campus, where you are advised, and someone oversees your progress toward your degree. But the list of classes that are available becomes more broad, because you have content piped in from other campuses.

</p>

<p>The MOOCs may charge much less per course than the residential colleges do, so students may want to take many courses through them, pressuring the residential college economic model. Currently students enrolled in massive 500-student in-person courses such as calculus and general chemistry are being overcharged compared to upperclassmen taking classes with 20 students. The classes you would want to take in person will be the smaller ones that are more expensive to provide.</p>

<p>In general the unbundling that MOOCs promote will discourage cross subsidization. Selective colleges can charge much higher tuition to rich kids than poor ones, but I doubt MOOCs will be able to, any more than booksellers can.</p>

[BobWallace]

<p>

I think we continue to move toward the paperless office of the future, so, yes, I consider the prediction correct although the time frame was wrong.

</p>

<p>I would say this indicates an inability on your part to distinguish reality from imaginings of possible futures.</p>

<p>

I interpret this as you saying that online instruction cannot be superior to the in-person experience (now or apparently 20+ years from now).

</p>

<p>I would say this statement is dishonest because it takes my statement about current day reality and distorts it into a prediction of the future which I have not made. I understand how it may not seem dishonest to you since you do not distinguish present day reality from imaginings of the future, as noted previously.</p>