The Key to the Future of Education? Disrupt the the Product as Well as the Delivery Model
We've now reached the point where the delivery of high quality education through nontraditional means has been realized. So what are the factors holding us back from fully disrupting the college education industry?
According to David Blake of TechCrunch
The problem, to date, is that formal, online education is still being packaged in all-or-nothing degree programs, falsely constraining education innovation. . .Technology creates efficiencies by decreasing unit size while increasing utility. To falsely constrain anything to historically larger canons is to render technology impotent to do what it does best.
I tend to agree with this notion, but it seems as if colleges have little to no incentive to package their credentials into smaller units, as the demand for their preexisting, larger degree programs is already high enough. Unpacking these programs into smaller units would cannibalize the potential revenues that can be had when people are forced to take the courses they really need, as well as those that are not so relevant or practical.
A further obstacle is that the value of less-comprehensive credentials is something new, and thus less acceptable to many employers who want the comfort of seeing a full BA or BS.
Get government out of education at all levels, public school system is a joke and government student loans for college is the best example of how badly government can fuck shit up when they needlessly intervene.
As an alumni of higher education, I believe it to be one of the greatest scams in human history; however, they've been exceedingly successful in creating a seemingly impenetrable divide between the Haves (B.A.'s and B.S.'s) and the Have-Nots (High School Graduates), when, in reality, the important thing is a person's ability, which can't always be reliably measured by a person's academic history.
In the months leading up to my graduation as a pure Math major, my counselors kept trying to convince me that graduate school was the way to go. I responded, "So I could earn $30,000 a year as a post-doc... In four years? So I could continue reinforcing the notion that the only cure to having education (and no marketable skills) is more education?" Please... They had nothing to say after that.
I truly believe in the power of Technology to fundamentally change the way we think about education, but perceptions are going to need to change first. So long as a very powerful segment of society benefits from the system as it exists, we're not going to see the truly great change occur. For the record, I'm talking about change that could increase employment (more people getting education as the economy changes, disrupting current industries and creating new ones), increase social mobility (decreased reliance on traditional target institutions as a means to separate the wheat from chaff), and make us more productive, thereby increasing wages (self-explanatory).
Anyway, /end rant. This is one of the few topics I'm actually passionate about.
I think this is a very perceptive comment, thanks for the contribution.
The downside to having some of the oldest and best institutions of higher education is that with age, also comes an entrenched, and more obstinate system, with an ever growing number of people whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of such a system. The reason why arguably outdated degrees and departments continue to exist is due in large part to the people that depend on their existence for a living.
There is a slew of people who stand to lose out if education is disrupted.
With regards to the signaling that a degree from an Ivy or similar caliber institution can do; nothing will ever change this, and I don't think it should change. Chances are, if you've gotten into such an institution, you're already smart and hard-working.
Perhaps the key variable is time. The change is coming, but only time will allow the change to fully manifest.
The only way it will change is if there is a way to reliably signal intelligence / productivity / drive in a way similar to a degree.
Really, when someone puts they graduated Princeton econ with a 3.95 it tells me 2 things: 1) They worked hard in high school and got good test scores which indicates good general intelligence and 2) They were able to use the system to the best of their ability (which employers like).
I currently am at a top 10 school and I see it all the time. It's basically a 4 year IQ test. We know that if you graduate with honors from MIT then your a freakin' smart. It would be much better to put these people right into the workforce and have companies train their employees than spending four years to learn about the rise of 15th century Belgian culture or something.
That said, online degrees / learning still has no way of providing signaling power. If I say I took an online course from Stanford, that basically means nothing. I haven't shown that I am intelligent, whereas if I graduate from Stanford with a good GPA I have proved something. That's where the divide lies, and that's where online education has to go next: mass quantification of people's abilities.
I do disagree with the person above however. Graduate school is a totally different ballgame than work and is necessary for a career in academia or certain industry jobs etc. It's not all about the money to a lot of people.
It's definitely coming, and I think we've been fortunate to witness the baby steps - first with Khan Academy and now the progressively more in-depth Coursera.
I've been using both of these resources recently. They're incredibly useful and satisfy a huge amount of pent-up demand. It certainly is an exciting time, and I fully agree with you that we are really fortunate to be witnessing it. Hopefully 10-30 years from now we can reminisce about "how education used to be".
Can't agree more. Higher education is a waste of time for many, many people. Unless you are going into academia, research, or a few select disciplines (e.g. medicine) you are better trained on the job.
Let's assume college does teach "critical thinking", and is not just a 4 year chance to live life with few responsibilities. I would still argue that 100-200k is a lot to pay for something as nebulous as "critical thinking"; this is assuming those same skills cannot be learned elsewhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/your-money/career-or-deep-learning-po…
The above article mentions the merits of European vocational programs. I am not personally familiar with them, so I will not judge their efficacy. But, I think one could note Germany's status as a manufacturing giant in a globalized world, and its heavy use of vocational training.
The same article talks about how a liberal arts education is necessary to an informed democracy. Really? I guess voters have just been ignorant throughout most of American history. We should also keep those accountants and nurses away from the polls- they lack the critical thinking skills necessary to understand contemporary problems, like the budget and healthcare.
They say that a 4 year BA leaves your options open. In truth, that is only because graduates are a blank slate, of little value to any company. To some extent, tracking is necessary. You need specialization to add value. College just delays making a choice. Academia is so removed from the real world that I doubt you are even more able to make a choice after graduating.
The quality of online coursework is increasing exponentially, but the utility for employment or access to professional programs is lagging. Any ideas on how to accelerate this?
A aut harum qui modi enim laudantium. Quo harum est molestiae non et dolorem nemo. Et et accusamus consequatur similique aliquam. Necessitatibus dolor vel nesciunt.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...