Ernie : OK, now we are talking reality and real possibilities. There isn't much at all in your comments to disagree with. And there are a good number or very hopeful ideas in your proposal. In fact, I would like to put some of your suggestions into memory ( the cranial variety ) and let the ideas ferment and see what comes out in the days / weeks ahead. Very nice approach. Where I disagree, but can see where you are coming from in a high tech field where there are talent shortages, concerns the view that brick and mortar institutions are sucking up all the "good people." Last time this was true in the Liberal Arts was the 1960s. Since the 1970s the number of well educated social scientists, historians, arts people, psychologists, and you-name-it, has grown and grown and job opportunities have not grown at nearly the same rate. In fact, for all practical purposes the employment rate for Lib Arts people has been flat since about 1980 if not before, but the pool of grads has increased yearly. I think I was in almost the very last class of grads in history to have a really good shot at a college teaching position. By this time there are maybe 10 Lib Arts graduates per each job, and this estimate may be generous. It may really be more like 15 or 20 : 1. So, when I think of a university start-up, my thinking is that there exists a really large pool of very well schooled people who have real world non-academic experiences to draw upon, who can be hired at reasonable expense and be grateful for the opportunity. This would be an end run around the whole system. A chance to design a university with no need to worry about tenure or "established procedures" and focus on what actually works and produces results. Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Very useful ideas to reflect upon. Need to give this a little time, but now there is something to work with. Billy ==================================================== 3/12/2012 3:06:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Hi Billy, After reading through your various replies, I have decided to adjust my two-sentence manifesto. * My goal is NOT to delegitimize college, but to delegitimize the monopoly the word "college" has on the idea of higher learning. * My goal is NOT to claim online/informal learning is superior to in-person/classroom learning, but to place them on equal footing where they can compete based on their merits, not historical baggage. In fact, I agree with almost everything you wrote. The one sentence I did object to was: > From an educator's perspective the "ideal" college education would consist of I have two big problems with that statement: a) It starts from the educator's perspective. b) It assumes "college" is an intrinsic part of the "ideal" IMHO, a far better question is, "From society's perspective, what should the ideal mix of higher educational opportunities include?" > What is your model ? What, exactly, do you have in mind ? To answer your question: I'm not planning to start a university anytime soon (I lightheartedly claim Apple will start or buy one in the next decade, but I have no evidence to support that). I may start a grade school with my church in the next five years, but that's (partly) a separate discussion. What I really want is to start the *conversation*. And not so much with universities themselves: > The problem is that universities are powerful institutions with hoards of > influential ( and often rich ) alums. Its like Luxembourg going up against > the Third Reich, if you will, or more benignly, against Napoleon. To succeed > everything possible has to go right and little or nothing can go wrong. Wrong metaphor. I prefer to think of universities as the Maginot Line. That's why I am uninterested in "radical reform" -- it is the very thing university structures are designed to prevent, because it would destroy their existing business model of government subsidies and non-accountability for outcomes. So, screw 'em. My plan is to join (and influence) the public conversation, and "blitzkrieg" around them by highlighting the success of alternatives. http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/25/6717536-the-entrepreneur -whos-paying-kids-not-to-go-to-college I'm stressing online right now because its cost model allows for both broader access and easier experimentation, but I am equally interested in seeing alternative in-person venues (like our friend Paul Graham's Y Combinator). http://ycombinator.com/about.html And as you point out: On Mar 10, 2012, at 4:00 PM, [email protected] wrote: > 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. The challenge is calling something like that a "college", because the overhead of accreditation makes that impossible on U.S. soil. Which is why innovation is almost certain to happen outside existing campuses (with a few notable exceptions). http://www.theinnovativeuniversity.com/ Sure, savvy schools will adapt and adopt many of these innovations, and good for them! But I don't have the patience to fight the bureaucracy. I'd rather arm the insurgents. Again, that's my personal vendetta, not a blanket statement about what the future will hold. > 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. Okay, I think I see where the disconnect comes from. Right now, all the energy and innovation is happening on the *technical* side, because it is easy and cheap and low-risk. But in the long-term, I think I agree: the real innovation will come from reinventing the "live" side of the equation. But to do that effectively, you need to throw out the entire cost structure of the modern university, including how it subsidizes research. Which is going to take a lot more time and money, and won't really be viable for another few years until online learning reduces the costs of "the basics" in a way that allows schools to specialize on what live learning does best. Here's what I can imagine Rohan's schooling will look like in 15 years. 1. While still in "high school" -- and living cheaply at home -- he will complete all the "core" classes students used to spend their first two years on. 2. The summer after graduation, when he's 18 or so, he will attend a three-month "education boot camp" to instill discipline and expose him to various career options 3. Based on that experience, he (and possibly teammates from there) will spend a year or two at a 150-person "Learning Community" focused on a specific field. 4. He may do this 2-3 times, either at the same community or a different one, depending on his passions. These "Learning Communities" will probably resemble the Santa Fe Institute more than a traditional university. It will be completely interdisciplinary (to the point where that word starts to seem archaic or even redundant). His experience will be more like graduate school, where he is actively partnered with cutting-edge researchers pursuing real-world projects that generate "revenue" (even if partly in the form of grant funding). There will be few "classes" in the sense of lecture-driven learning, but lots of informal colloquia, seminars, workshops and pedagogical projects designed to *train* students in useful skills (like critical thinking, historical analysis, cross-cultural communication, etc.) -- not to mention full access to world's online learning for anything not available locally. We would pay for living expenses, but the faculty would get paid by a fraction of his future revenue stream, so they have a strong incentive to a) find the right students, and b) help them succeed. For non-profit work, they'd be entitled to a "kickback" as overhead on whatever projects he accomplishes for society. Such "Learning Communities" will still seem unusual by then, but hopefully not so strange that I can't convince his mother to let him try. And it would allow him to start changing the world full-time when he's 21 years old, rather than racking up (or paying off) debt. Is this model for everyone? No, of course not. I'd be perfectly happy if my daughter attended a traditional four-year liberal arts college. But right now, my dream for Rohan isn't even an option, because of the enormous academic-political-industrial complex that sucks up virtually all the available talent and money, and produces a very poor rate of return. Is this even the right model? Probably not in the details, but surely a lot closer to the mark than the typical university is today. So I plan to spend the next decade or so (in my spare time) applying whatever minuscule pressure I can to legitimize *that* dream, explicitly at the expense of the current societal understanding of "a college education". Does that make more sense, Billy? -- Ernie P. On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > The manifesto you sent makes valid enough points. Still, it would be a good idea > to repeat my previous comments about a "best mix" of educational alternatives. > A switch from all lectures all the time to all virtual ed all the time > is not what I was talking about, as worthwhile as online courses > and other learning options may be. On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Chris Hahn wrote: > On the other hand, I would never substitute my bricks and mortar bachelor ’s degree experience with an online substitute. At that post-high school stage of life I needed the face to face interpersonal interactions that I got every day. My 4 years at Hope College were transformational not just because of what I learned in the classrooms; those years marked a significant developmental stage for me. On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > From an educator's perspective the "ideal" college education would consist > of a blend of a number of learning alternatives. Computers are important > but they aren't the whole picture. On Mar 7, 2012, at 5:22 PM, [email protected] wrote: > The problem is that universities are powerful institutions with hoards of > influential ( and often rich ) alums. Its like Luxembourg going up against > the Third Reich, if you will, or more benignly, against Napoleon. To succeed > everything possible has to go right and little or nothing can go wrong. > What is your model ? What, exactly, do you have in mind ? Well, try it out, > see if it works. If it works as good as you think it should, then you have a "product" > you can sell nationwide. But, first, what is the future model you would like to achieve ? > Let's see the blueprints, or at least some thought-through sketches. -- 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 -- 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
