"Kentucky's two-year colleges have added competency and self-paced elements to online offerings for working adults, proving "disruptive" approaches can work for, rather than against, colleges."
|Current selected tag: ':disruption/transformation'. Clear.|
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
The continuing transformation of higher education, with the twin pressures of economics and technological innovation, will challenge colleges and universities to find new efficiencies and specialization, embrace and incorporate a student's personal learning networks and paths, blend experiential and digital approaches, and adopt free and open-source educational resources. The dialogue is an evolving one, but Kamenetz will share her initial findings, and asks you to consider the impact of tuition and student loans, as well as technology and social media, on higher education.
Anya Kamenetz is bringing an entirely unexpected perspective on the future of knowledge, talent, and innovation. An educational futurist and the rare speaker on issues facing Millennials (while actually belonging to this generation), she delivers audiences core insights into change, technology, and talent.
| ~ Ben Wildavsky (author) More about this product |
Amazon.com: Reinventing Higher Education: The Promise of Innovation (9781934742877): Ben Wildavsky, Andrew Kelly, Kevin Carey: Books...
"[T]his course, Building a Search Engine, is taught by two prominent computer scientists, Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford research professor and Google fellow, and David Evans, a professor on leave from the University of Virginia.
The big names have been a big draw. Since Udacity, the for-profit startup running the course, opened registration on Jan. 23, more than 90,000 students have enrolled in the search-engine course and another taught by Mr. Thrun, who led the development of Google’s self-driving car.
Welcome to the brave new world of Massive Open Online Courses — known as MOOCs — a tool for democratizing higher education. While the vast potential of free online courses has excited theoretical interest for decades, in the past few months hundreds of thousands of motivated students around the world who lack access to elite universities have been embracing them as a path toward sophisticated skills and high-paying jobs, without paying tuition or collecting a college degree. And in what some see as a threat to traditional institutions, several of these courses now come with an informal credential (though that, in most cases, will not be free)."
Macquarie University Vice-Chancellor Steven Schwartz Blog (Why MITx may herald the dawn of disruption for higher education http://t.co/NJRNZYGs #SCUP: disruption tsunami on its way...)...
It's pretty simple: "MIT plans to create a not-for-profit body that will offer certification for online learners of MIT coursework. In other words, with MITx there will be structured study leading to a credential." Not from MIT, but from MITx. Worthless, right? Hmm
They're exciting. Yes. But we, also, have wondered what the business plan is. The Chronicle editor Jeff Selingo muses:
"With some real dollars at stake, do these elite universities know something about the future of higher education that the rest of us don’t? Or with their billions in endowments, do they have the luxury of throwing money at ideas, to see which ones stick? Or are they simply altruistic, and want to provide free education to the world?
From where I sit, it doesn’t seem like any of these universities have a business plan for these massive open online courses or MOOC’s, as they are known. In recent weeks, at various gatherings, I’ve heard plenty of ideas for a business model, although I’m not sure all of them are viable. They could eventually follow the iTunes model and sell access to a course for $1.99. That starts adding up to real money if you get 100,000+ people to sign up. Depending on the course subject, they could sell access to corporate recruiters. That’s essentially what Sebastian Thrun did last fall, when he sent the résumés of his best students from his Stanford MOOC to Google and other Silicon Valley companies.
Perhaps the best idea I’ve heard so far is that the universities could use these courses as an alternative admissions system."
Solis has a rewarding frame within which to look the pros and cons of "information overload"from both a personal and a planing professional view: "We are the engineers of the mdeia levees that presently overflow."
"Social media has gifted us a new democracy. And with it, the ability to connect to people around the world and create, share, and devour knowledge, entrainment, and irrelevant information at will. It’s as intimidating as it is beautiful. We have passed the Attention Rubicon and there is no turning back. The towers of social media will not come crumbling down upon the foundation of a former reality when we or the generations before us led a much simpler life. The key for us now is forged in self-control or some form of aspirational governance that focuses our connects and interactions.
Indeed, there is a very real human cost of social connectivity. But, the symptoms of information overload are only a reflection of our inability or lack of desire to bring order to our chaos. See, we are the engineers of the media levees that prevent overflow."
We're not sure that we agree that all of these are either (a) disruptive or (b)n different from each other. What do you think of this (alphabetical) list?
A must-read by Charles Henry and Brad Wheeler in EDUCAUSE Review. The list of 8 things the academy can do to rethink and relabance sound like a list of integrated planning tenets.
“There are also billions of dollars resting in the current system, so there is much resistance to major change.”
Kathy Davidson interviewed in Learning, Freedom and the Web by Anya Kamenetz and others, a publication available at no cost in both PDF and HTML versions.
by Doug Lederman at Inside Higher Ed: (Here's a Chronicle report by Nick DeSantis.
"Whatever becomes of the Minerva Project, you have to give the big names behind it credit for aiming high (at least with its rhetoric, which is the only way to judge it thus far).
"This is not a technology play, it's not a disruption, and I'm not saying, 'Forget your degree, you don't need one,' " like Peter Thiel's experiment offering students $100,000 to forgo college, Nelson said. 'I'm not saying any of those things may be invalid; there are plenty of good reasons to have badges [as an alternative to college credentials], and to expand existing programs beyond their reach.'
What hasn't been done yet, though, is an effort to put a truly rigorous higher education in the hands of many more students at a lower price, he said."
"No tenure. No departments. This university challenges typical teaching, and learning." This is Quest University, and its president, David Helfand, will join us to present the concurrent session, "Big Site, Small Classes, Smart Funding: Building Canada's Quest University," about the creation and success of Quest.
"You’ve eliminated departments. Why?
Departments are the source of much evil in universities. They waste enormous amounts of time and emotional energy by arguing about space and “faculty lines” and resources, while walling off disciplines from innovative approaches to knowledge and restricting students and faculty alike to narrow, often outmoded paths of inquiry.
What’s Quest’s biggest challenge?
We have to make sure people’s inherent conservatism isn’t allowed to come through. We have to institutionalize revolution, or we’ll end up with departments and semester-long courses."
Dean Dad boils down the reasons behind the higher education cost spiral:
"The first, which is easy to explain, is cuts in public appropriations. My own college gets about five million per year less from the state than it got four years ago. (That’s over ten percent of its total budget.) That’s before adjusting for inflation. In many other states, it’s considerably worse. You simply cannot remove that much money that quickly without consequences.
The only problem with this theory is that while it’s unassailable in explaining the last few years, it isn’t as strong in explaining the preceding decades. Yes, the recent fiscal sinkhole matters, but tuition went up fast during better years, too.
The longer-term issue is productivity. And no, that’s not a euphemism for “you’re too lazy.” It’s simply to say that if you continue to measure learning in units of time, and those units don’t change, then your productivity increases will forever be zero, by definition. When the rest of the economy grows a few percent per year for decades, the gap compounds. It’s called “Baumol’s cost disease,” and it’s endemic to education and health care. And that’s true whether the professors or doctors are lazy, conscientious, or even heroic. It’s not about them."
Jeff Selingo in The Chronicle:
"We’ve seen in the disruption of other information industries in recent years that change has resulted in the decline of the middleman—record companies, newspapers, and book publishers. The relationship is increasingly between the producer (in the case of higher ed, the professor) and the consumer (the student). It makes physical campuses and institutions less important, at least to those students who need to move around."
"Steve Gunderson is determined to stay positive as the leader of for-profit colleges’ primary trade group. It won’t be easy." The title link is to Inside Higher Ed. Here's a similar story in The Chronicle.
A tough job, at a tough time. We hope he'll share some of those challenges and opportunities with us at SCUP–47 in Chicago, in July.