David :
Will take a look.  Meanwhile, although I understand your gripes about 
Leftist  professors,
especially after what I went though at U of O back in 2008 - 2010,   one 
thing
I don't do is take the view that nothing can be done. But you   --anyone-- 
has 
got to want to make waves and cause major reforms, AND be prepared 
for a good fight. So, my assumption is that this is a good time for a  
street brawl
in higher ed, and the sooner the better.
 
Put a team together, starting with Horowitz. If some people aren't team  
players
at least get their advice, like Sowell or Krauthammer. "Organize to fight  
the Devil"
was the old Methodist slogan and it can be dusted off and re-used to good  
effect.
 
Unfortunately few conservatives even think in terms of a movement. That  is,
for them a "movement" is a lot of self interest by individuals who  
otherwise
don't cohere about much.  But an actual  movement means  dedication to a 
cause.,
something "higher" than  "I  got mine and screw you," that  is, "I don't 
have mine
and until I get it, screw you."
 
There used to be a conservative movement, in the 1980s. Maybe you could  say
it continued into the 1990s. But it  is long gone now and until a new  
movement
arises the political Right has serious problems.
 
Actually I'd like to see a Radical Centrist movement.  I have zero  interest
in a number of Right-wing causes, like anti-evolution, like so-called "free 
 trade" ideology,
and would rather try and defeat those particular  views than not.  This is 
especially
true in education where the needed reforms are not just those favored by  
the Right.
Take evolution. Feminists are also anti-evolution, at least they are  
anti-sociobiology
which is based on evolution. About that, my fight is with both Right and  
Left.
 
In any case, I have my soapbox and fully intend to keep on saying  what
seems to me to need saying. 
 
I know damned well what education CAN become. No reason to assume
that it can never be something good and valuable. I mean, have  you
given up on A&M ?   For myself, I am very unhappy with  today's
Roosevelt University and with UMass, but with some serious  effort
and a boatload of fresh workable ideas, and some kind of leverage,
these schools can be reformed. Why not ?  They weren't always
the way they are now. 
 
At that, there surely are all kinds of majors that are only minimally 
concerned with the politics of faculty, like geology, engineering,
physics, architecture, marketing, organic chem, and so forth.
 
Billy
 
====================================
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3/10/2012 5:44:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]  
writes:

Go to pjmedia.com/instapundit and search for  "higher education bubble" on 
that site. Be prepared for an AVALANCHE of posts.  

Even though he is a law professor, Glenn Reynolds isn't afraid to bust  the 
chops of the field he is in. The current model of high prices in the time  
of economic crisis does not lead to more folks wanting to go to college. The 
 administrative bloat has to be dealt with or very few folks are going to 
be  able to afford it. Many are finding that they cannot afford student 
loans,  either. Besides, many are simply "Leftist Indoctrination U." Now why 
would I  want to spend money on that??? 

David

  _     
 
"I am so  Libertarian that I don't think  lawyers and doctors should be 
licensed by the government. I am so  Libertarian  that I make some Libertarians 
 cringe."--Neal Boortz  


On  3/10/2012 6:00 PM, [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])   wrote:  
Re : Following Article
 
Worthwhile summary of trends effecting higher ed. However, as  with most 
papers
about the "future of college education" that I have read so far,  something 
crucial
is overlooked. Simple ( simplistic ) trend line forecasts ignore an  
obvious question :
 
What will colleges DO to try and keep campus based education relevant  and 
valuable ?
 
Methinks this question is studiously avoided in the computer business  ;  
not something
anyone wants to think about since, after all., the purpose of any  computer 
firm is to
sell computers and / or software. Anything that does not contribute to  
selling
computer products  cannot , by definition, reflect the  future.
 
It seems unarguably true that the future of education at the college  level 
will
feature increasing computer / software use. Anyone who has another  view
cannot be taken seriously. But as in all things, there are limits to  how 
far any
trend can go. Inevitably you get market saturation or resistance, or  some 
new
innovation  --not necessarily a product invention--  changes  everything.
 
It would be a good idea to consider what in-person education can do  that no
technology is able to do and will never be able to do. After all, once  
these features
are identified you are better able to look at limits objectively and  make 
plans
accordingly. The current trend will persist but only as long as  
alternatives
continue to lag as strong non-computer  selling points.
 
Again, to conceive college education as essentially only a matter of  
attending lectures
is a major mistake. That was not the case when I started teaching  way back 
when
and it certainly is not the case now.
 
Consider an experiment that is due for a revival, short terms in  which 
students take
exactly one class. The way it was done at Alice Lloyd College was that  
there was
a short term for the month of January, each year. Two classes of mine  were 
in this format.
 
Indian History of the Southeast United States featured not only  lectures 
so that students
had a background of hard information,  but included a week long  field trip 
to Native American
sites in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina  Back as  the 
college one of 
the highlights of the term was a cooking class in which we prepared a  meal 
for the student body on campus consisting entirely of foods that  Indians 
prepared 
in early American history.
 
The other class was called "Space Exploration and the Future."   The field 
trip was to
Cape Kennedy and  to the Huntsville Space Museum. There also was a  Space 
Fair that
the class created for the student body.
 
Yes, if computers had been available at the time there would have been  
even more
we could have done. Similarly for video equipment, which was still  fairly 
scarce
in those years in higher ed. But the fact remains that the "whole  package" 
which
such a course consisted of, simply cannot be replicated with "virtual"  
classes.
There is unique value to this kind of class. Not just mine, but those  of
most of the faculty at ALC.
 
Now think about other kinds of experiential college education. 
 
I one knew a woman who started an at-sea college in which students  cruised 
the globe
on a large sailboat, literally learning on site, Greece when studying  the 
classic past, 
Italy when studying the Renaissance, Israel when studying the Mid East  
or Biblical archaeology.
 
A woman teacher at ALC wanted to create another class for that January  
one-month
term that was a terrific idea even if, last I remember,   funding for it 
had never been obtained.
But her idea was a trip through the Southwest to study geology. As good  as 
some geology
books are, as good as some visuals available on the Web are, no way can  
any such thing
compare with actually being there and "studying" geology from "the  rocks 
themselves" and 
their geological environment.
 
Same kind of considerations apply to environmental science, recreation  / 
hospitality,
security management, and dozens of other fields. 
 
Seems to me that it won't be much longer before MOST colleges  and  
universities
are in the midst of another world as they emphasize the advantages of  
being AT their school,
not just being connected to their school via the Internet.
 
In that case, the task for computer businesses will not be simply  
manufacturing more and more
hardware, no matter now good some of it may be,  but in creating  products 
that augment
experiential  ( you-are-there ) education.
 
So far, to the best of my knowledge, no-one in the computer business  has 
even begun
to think along these lines. I wonder if it is even possible for them to  
do. Sometimes
the mindset seems to be that computers are the world and the  future, 
rather than
part of the world and part of the future. Only when faced with a  reality 
that, so far, 
has yet to materialize except in a few scattered locations, can this  
mindset be challenged
successfully. But to expect colleges to roll over and play dead so that  
computer businesses
can prosper as their campuses become shopping malls would be,  IMHO,
really, really  short-sighted. Expect a "counter-reformation" and  expect 
it soon.
 
Billy
 
==================================================
 
 
 
 
 
tle.wisc.edu/.../college-2020-according-chronicle-higher-education
 
no date, but recent
 
by : ambrower
 
The College of 2020 according to  the Chronicle of Higher Education

 
 
The Chronicle of Higher Education has posted the first of three research  
reports on future trends in higher education.  This first one, The  College 
of 2020:  Students, reports trends of  students--demographic information, 
interests, use of technology, which  sectors of higher education are growing at 
a faster pace, part-time vs.  full-time status, etc.  _Click here_ 
(http://research.chronicle.com/asset/TheCollegeof2020ExecutiveSummary.pdf)  for 
the 
free executive summary. 
This is a well done piece, and their primary questions, "What is college,  
and why should I go?" are exactly right.  One premise of this report is  
that two economic models of colleges will survive:  4-year  residential and 
research institutions with already-recognized and respected  brand names 
(privates like Harvard as well as public flagships like  UW-Madison), and the 
for-profit institutions that rely heavily on on-line  and flexible educational 
degrees.  Those that are somewhere in the  middle are going to have a very 
rough time.  Here are some of the  conclusions from the report: 
    *   Fewer and fewer students will seek full-time, four year programs 
due  to their expense, inconvenience, and inflexibility of programs.  
    *   Thus, an emphasis will be on providing cheap, convenient, flexible  
education that students can access anywhere.  
    *   Three-year degree programs will proliferate.  
    *   To attract more students, colleges may begin to offer one-year  
remedial programs to high school students who are not yet prepared for  college 
work.  At the same time, adult education and college  education will 
increasingly merge.  
    *   At some point just after 2020, minority students will outnumber 
whites  on college campuses for the first time.  
    *   Even for universities that are largely residential, "hybrid" 
courses  will increasingly become the norm:  classroom discussions, office  
hours, 
lectures, study groups, and assignments will move on line.  
    *   Here's a quote I particularly liked because of things I've  already 
mentioned about web 2.0:  "The Internet has made most  information 
available to everyone, and faculty members must take that  into consideration 
when 
teaching. There is very little  that students cannot find on their own if 
they are inspired to do so.  And many of them will be surfing the Net in class. 
The faculty member,  therefore, may become less an oracle and more an 
organizer and guide,  someone who adds perspective and context, finds the best 
articles and  research, and sweeps away misconceptions and bad information."  
(emphasis added). 
Some of these trends, I hope, are not a surprise to you:  we've had  plenty 
of discussion on this blog, throughout the TLE site, and across  campus, 
about uses of technology and how to make our educational enterprise  
distinctive.  And we are already moving in the direction of how to  best use 
technologies and how to best engage students through our WI Exp/ELO  
initiatives.  
Yet, we must continue to make explicit and  demonstrate the value of a 
UW-Madison degree; neither complacency nor our  "Madison modesty" are not going 
to 
serve us well.  As I've challenged  us many times, when students can take 
intro chem or psychology anywhere, or  a course in US politics, Shakespeare, 
or Latin American History, or even  advanced methods in structural equation 
modeling, why would they want to  take it with us?   
We need to show them why--and its because our unique and  comprehensive WI 
Experience adds value, it's because our WI Experience helps  our graduates 
go off and change the  world.





 

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Reply via email to