Bringing Convenience and Open Source Methods To Higher Education

Business Week has a piece discussing the effects internet-based technology and open sharing are having on the standards of higher education. The author says every product's success or failure depends on its fidelity — the overall quality of experience — and convenience. Since the internet has made the sharing of even expert-level knowledge convenient, he wonders how long it will be until some school or company raises the fidelity enough to have their degrees accepted alongside those of professional-grade colleges. Quoting: "Once in a while, a market gets completely out of balance. Forces conspire to prevent either a high-fidelity or high-convenience player from emerging. All the offerings crowd around one end or the other. Eventually, someone nails a disruptive approach. Customers and competitors rush in and the marketplace wonders why that great idea didn't come sooner. The higher education market is a lot like that. For centuries the university model dominated because nothing else worked. No technology existed that might deliver an interactive, engaging educational experience without gathering students and teachers in the same physical space. ... These days broadband Internet, video games, social networks, and other developments could combine to create an online, inexpensive, super-convenient model for higher education. You wouldn't get the sights and sounds of a campus, personal contact with professors, or beer-soaked frat parties, but you'd end up with the knowledge you need and the degree to prove it."

Comments

Erm.... Labs?

[kombipom]

Small problem with that idea in the physical sciences, a simulated lab isn't much use for hands on experience.

Re:Erm.... Labs?

[QuantumRiff]

I'm pretty sure its impossible to ship out Cadavers for anatomy classes.

Re:Erm.... Labs?

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

Labs are just one of many reasons why this approach doesn't work. The people who promote this idea of an online University imply that higher education is only about transferring old knowledge from one person (professor) to the other (student). If it were that simple, there wouldn't be much of a need to rank Universities (but professors instead), and nobody would care about a University's history, location and culture.

"Alma mater" is Latin for "nurturing mother". A University is not a web portal. It's a place where personalities are made. The eloquent guy with the strong political opinion you shared a house with in your second year, the brilliant students in the first row that always outsmarted you in class, the cameraderie of the guys on the football field or in your rowing boat, the all-nighters spent over an assignment you absolutely had to hand in by sunrise, all that make up the quality of your University education, just as much as that famous professor in whose lab you wrote your Masters thesis. None of this can be shipped to someone's mother's basement.

Have a look at your average 18 year old when they leave high school, and look at them again a few years later when they return from Uni. You can't send that sort of experience over a broadband connection. Employers know that. After all, they've been to University.

Re:Erm.... Labs?

[Narpak]

Small problem with that idea in the physical sciences, a simulated lab isn't much use for hands on experience.

Of course any degree that requires instruction with access to various facilities; labs, operating rooms, a kitchen, or others; will, probably, always need the students to attend a physical location (though I reckon at some point there will be certain things that can be done through VR).

However any study that is entirely academic, say certain fields of math, computer science, social studies, arts, or any field that only requires basic equipment that is available for a reasonable price at a local store of some sort; can be learned through eBooks, Video, Audio, Forums, Interactive Programs, and other forms that can be access by a computer. I would argue that in these cases someone with the motivation to learn can get a grip of a field of study to a sufficient degree that they can use that knowledge in a work related context. It isn't where you learn, but that you learn. A university degree has always just been a piece of paper (or note in a database) that certifies that you know what you should know.

Some jobs no doubt require a higher proficiency in a field than others, but very many jobs only need their new employees to have a basic understanding of the core concepts; enough so that they can be properly re-educated by whatever institution, organization, corporation or etc. that they end up working for. And this of course does not even being to count the people that might for professional, or personal, reasons want to broaden their understanding without actually having a real need for a degree.

While there will no doubt remain a need and desire for Universities, or at least a building or buildings, organized and equipped to educate in a great variance of fields; they are not an absolute requirement for all types of education. Depending of course upon what you define as the goal of an education. If the goal is simply to allow people to learn enough to give them a chance at a career in a field that interests them, then I would argue that attending University in the traditional way is not a absolute necessity. And that there are many with a real motivation and desire for learning, but that for some reason or another do not have the means or the flexibility to attend a brick and mortar institution for a number of years. But that never the less with access to the right educational services could learn and be educated to a sufficient level that they can improve upon their own situation.

tests?

[Anonymous Coward]

One potential problem:

How does the school prove the person who took whatever tests over the internet is the person they were said to be?

Another thing brick and mortar schools do is allow for some extremely basic filtering of students...students must be able to attend a classroom with other people, work collectively in some cases, and have some basic competition in general, without being too disruptive.

Otherwise, it's a no-brainer. Many brick and mortar schools now have some online component.

One sentence discredits the whole article

[antifoidulus]

The University of Phoenix which is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, is partway there, though it's a hybrid of online and campus learning.

Um, "partway there"? If someone came to me with a University of Phoenix degree, I would reply, "Well, that DOES prove you like to pay a lot of money for toilet paper."

The University Of Phoenix education is a complete and utter joke. What they teach is worthless and best and counterproductive at worst(and yes, I have seen some of the content of their masters programs, assignments that include algebra I was doing in 7th grade and homework questions like, "What is a MAN?")

These articles don't want to point out the fact that entrepreneurs have already tried, and failed pretty miserably, at taking on the higher education market before, and other than using the internet, I don't see much difference between what was tried then and what this guy is proposing.

Re:One sentence discredits the whole article

[SoVeryTired]

These articles don't want to point out the fact that entrepreneurs have already tried, and failed pretty miserably, at taking on the higher education market before, and other than using the internet, I don't see much difference between what was tried then and what this guy is proposing.

The Open University in the UK did just that, and they did it really successfully.

Re:One sentence discredits the whole article

[Andrew Cady]

The University Of Phoenix education is a complete and utter joke. What they teach is worthless and best and counterproductive at worst(and yes, I have seen some of the content of their masters programs, assignments that include algebra I was doing in 7th grade and homework questions like, "What is a MAN?")

That doesn't matter, because what universities sell is not education but credentials.

After all, the internet as a whole provides a much richer educational environment than any university possibly could, "internet university" or not. (Indeed, classes in ordinary universities are also a joke, if you're accustomed to learning things without being forced.)

But just learning things won't help you get you a job. I have heard perfectly competent hackers talk about going back to get another degree (in computer science) even though they know they wouldn't learn anything there, because it would help them get higher-paying jobs.

So yeah, there's a market for credentials, and the less time you have to waste pretending to be learning what in fact you already know, the better.

Re:One sentence discredits the whole article

[TheRaven64]

Let's face it, you DO NOT need to physically be in a classroom to learn computer science. Hell, most old line universities are so far behind the IT curve that it's become a bit of a joke in the IT field.

The fact that you seem to believe that computer science is more than tangentially related to the IT field leads me to doubt your views have merit in this subject. Or do you also judge astronomy degrees by the glasswork skills of the graduates?

Re:One sentence discredits the whole article

[oldhack]

"Let's face it, you DO NOT need to physically be in a classroom to learn computer science. Hell, most old line universities are so far behind the IT curve that it's become a bit of a joke in the IT field."

Computer science is not IT.

Cookie-cutter lower-level math and science courses (excluding labs) seem well suited for online learning, I agree.

My memorable college experience was getting laid

[nbauman]

"You wouldn't get the sights and sounds of a campus, personal contact with professors, or beer-soaked frat parties, but you'd end up with the knowledge you need and the degree to prove it."

Personal contact with professors. Don't need that. I realize this is supposed to be provocative and snarky but --

He's suggesting a two-class society, in which some of us will be alphas and go on to first-class colleges, while the rest of us will be betas and memorize pages from the Internet.

When you go to college, you're in an educational environment 24/7, getting exposed to more ideas and experiences than most people get otherwise in a lifetime.

Can you imagine spending all your waking hours for 4 years on the Internet hooked up to the University of Phoenix?

To me, the classic moment of college was standing up in a classroom having to defend a position that people disagree with. And then arguing about it later in the cafeteria or dorm. If you've never spent all night arguing over the existence of God, then you never had an education.

Most of the important things I learned at college -- computers, biology, art, music, new sexual positions, fixing cars -- I learned bullshitting with my friends over at my house, or over somebody's dining room table, or just hanging out. And yes we did have a few drinks or a joint. And yes it's nice to have some girls join you in your intellectual explorations. It was also nice to have a library where books were arranged according to the LC call number so whatever you were interested in, you could find a whole shelf on the subject, and read whatever you wanted (even if it was under copyright). And it was nice to go over to the computer lab or physics lab and try to crash the system. And it was nice to run into my professor in the supermarket.

This model of an education is like a factory worker punching in a time clock and sitting on an assembly line for 8 hours. Talk about obsolete models.

The Library

[florescent_beige]

University is more than a bunch of classes and tests. It's a life experience including: moving away from home and living on your own for the first time, meeting and getting along with people who are more talented than you (a shock if you aren't used to it), establishing friendships and the beginnings of a life-long network, finding out where professors come from, buying some Staedler instruments and spending hours admiring them (partly because you can't afford to do anything else after you paid for them with that month's food money), and discovering the university library.

I can't be the only one who's outlook on life was modified by spending time in a library like the Robarts. There's an atmosphere of concentrated truth in a place like that you just don't find anywhere else. First, you find out that the world is full of people who know a whole lot. Second, you learn that people have spent a lot of time writing down what they know. And the scale of what I'm talking about only really becomes clear when you stand in a library stack with books stretching off forever and ever, each one some person's passionate little gem.

To me, higher learning is about more than just getting some facts straight so you can get a job.

But having said all that, it will be true that other models of learning will bring education to people who otherwise wouldn't get it, and who can argue with that?

Re:Yes - and?

[nbauman]

I don't see what the big deal here is, although I haven't RTFA (of course).

One of the things I learned from college was that if you don't do the reading, you won't know what's going on in class.