Came across an article in Forbes today who's headline read "
"...time to get a little Adam Smith on this professor. The sole purpose of any production is consumption: and we should listen and consider the interests of the producer only to the point that said interest is essential to the interests of the consumer. And I’m afraid that if MOOCs do indeed produce the technological revolution which lessens our demand for professors then that’s just too bad for professors. Our only concern here is and should be the interests of the students. If they can get a better education through technology, the same but cheaper education, or even a worse and much cheaper education and that trade off seems acceptable to said students then that’s just the end of the matter. The students’ interests win."
MOOCs are the most significant technological revolution in higher eduction in a long time (as in several generations) The established higher-ed industry has not come to terms with it yet (a bit like the very early days of digital photography). In fact the biggest players are either Universities (e.g edX) or emerged from universities (e.g. Coursera who's founders hail from Stanford). Despite lots of hype and money being invested in the idea, the business model isn't clear or proven yet - but what a potential... In any case, the trend is already giving way to a wave of innovative startups looking to tap into this technological disruption. For instance, Spire Kenya is about to launch a new model for undergraduate education that harnesses MOOCs, and combines them with placements in companies, mentoring and peer-leaning, to produce graduates that are better suited to match the needs of employers. With a degree from an accrediated US university, and at a fraction of the price of private universities (e.g. less than $1000/year) - one could see that if such startups get it right, we could really have an appealing alternative model on hand.
To be sure, societies looking to get ahead will need to keep investing heavily in R&D, and universties will certainly continue to have a place in that picture. So am not convinced the Research University is about to go the way of the dinosaurs. However, many (in some contexts most) students in higher education are not on track for research careers. Yet becuase of the way academics (prof.) are hired, promoted and remunerated - essentially based on their publications record - advances in teaching and learning have suffered. It is this academic caste system whereby prof. in mainstream subjects (e.g. business, social sciences etc) shy away from great teaching (which sometimes pays less than janitorial work in the same institutions) in favor of often irrelevant research that's likely to be the first to go.
That might be a very good thing for most students.
"...time to get a little Adam Smith on this professor. The sole purpose of any production is consumption: and we should listen and consider the interests of the producer only to the point that said interest is essential to the interests of the consumer. And I’m afraid that if MOOCs do indeed produce the technological revolution which lessens our demand for professors then that’s just too bad for professors. Our only concern here is and should be the interests of the students. If they can get a better education through technology, the same but cheaper education, or even a worse and much cheaper education and that trade off seems acceptable to said students then that’s just the end of the matter. The students’ interests win."
MOOCs are the most significant technological revolution in higher eduction in a long time (as in several generations) The established higher-ed industry has not come to terms with it yet (a bit like the very early days of digital photography). In fact the biggest players are either Universities (e.g edX) or emerged from universities (e.g. Coursera who's founders hail from Stanford). Despite lots of hype and money being invested in the idea, the business model isn't clear or proven yet - but what a potential... In any case, the trend is already giving way to a wave of innovative startups looking to tap into this technological disruption. For instance, Spire Kenya is about to launch a new model for undergraduate education that harnesses MOOCs, and combines them with placements in companies, mentoring and peer-leaning, to produce graduates that are better suited to match the needs of employers. With a degree from an accrediated US university, and at a fraction of the price of private universities (e.g. less than $1000/year) - one could see that if such startups get it right, we could really have an appealing alternative model on hand.
To be sure, societies looking to get ahead will need to keep investing heavily in R&D, and universties will certainly continue to have a place in that picture. So am not convinced the Research University is about to go the way of the dinosaurs. However, many (in some contexts most) students in higher education are not on track for research careers. Yet becuase of the way academics (prof.) are hired, promoted and remunerated - essentially based on their publications record - advances in teaching and learning have suffered. It is this academic caste system whereby prof. in mainstream subjects (e.g. business, social sciences etc) shy away from great teaching (which sometimes pays less than janitorial work in the same institutions) in favor of often irrelevant research that's likely to be the first to go.
That might be a very good thing for most students.
No comments:
Post a Comment