End the University as we Know It

[BryanC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?pagewanted=2

Here's an interesting NY Times Op piece calling for: dissolving of departments into "zones of inquiry," increasing collaboration between universities, abolition of professor tenure, and several other things.

[MrShotShot]

As someone who has worked in higher education for almost 20 years, I agree with some of his points - especially tenure.

My prediction is that higher education is going to be one of Obama's straw men at some point in the next few years and the screw they are going to twist will be the fact that almost every school receives high levels of federal aid dollars and therefore the Federal Government should have more control over day-to-day activities - salaries, research focus, use of endowment, tuition, etc.

[margaretms]

Provocative and fairly radical--thanks for posting this. I think the use of enormous numbers of adjunct, contract, and non-tenure track faculty (the majority of college instructors now, or close) will mostly do away with tenure, as a practical matter. And the interdisciplinary stuff has been trendy for a while. But the problems (and benefits) of specialization go deeper than all that; I am always suspicious of any facile notion of "relevance" (as this debate goes back so long; we can look at John Henry Newman's The Idea of a University, from the 19th century, which deals with a lot of the same issues). I like the cross-pollination aspect of it; I have questions about whether this could lead to a lot of shallow, ephemeral, glib thinking, devoid of a strong basis in, say, economics or history or philosophy or biology literature or whatever.

[BryanC]

I like the cross-pollination aspect of it; I have questions about whether this could lead to a lot of shallow, ephemeral, glib thinking, devoid of a strong basis in, say, economics or history or philosophy or biology literature or whatever.

I thought the very same thing as I read through the list. The way in which the university attempts to examine an object such as history or philosophy- removed from their relationships to other objects- is in some respects beneficial to the modes of study. I cannot say if cross-discipline study would be better or worse than the current system.

[NYPiper79]

I think that universities need to eliminate these "elective" requirements. I ended up paying thousands of dollars for ridiculous classes that had nothing to do with my major. I am now in debt with student loans. I think that universities should eliminate these ridiculous electives, like dance and art, so we are not in the hole when we graduate! Can anyone else relate to this?

[BryanC]

I think that universities need to eliminate these "elective" requirements. I ended up paying thousands of dollars for ridiculous classes that had nothing to do with my major. I am now in debt with student loans. I think that universities should eliminate these ridiculous electives, like dance and art, so we are not in the hole when we graduate! Can anyone else relate to this?

I have never attended a school where dance was a required course. Nevertheless, classes in the arts may be very valuable regardless of major. There has already been a great deal of study into the benefits of arts education- creative problem solving, reflection, self-evaluation, et cetera- so I will not reiterate. If you approach a course of study with incredulousness the course may very well end up a failure. I happen to think that taking such classes contributes to what is popularly called "a well-rounded education."

I take it you did not like the article?

[Apatriot]

I think that universities need to eliminate these "elective" requirements. I ended up paying thousands of dollars for ridiculous classes that had nothing to do with my major. I am now in debt with student loans. I think that universities should eliminate these ridiculous electives, like dance and art, so we are not in the hole when we graduate! Can anyone else relate to this?


If you don't believe in a liberal education (meaning a broad education based on getting some knowledge of Western culture (including such things as art and history)), then go to a technical school. I was a science major, and in the long run, I think I learned as much in those "ridiculous" electives as I did in my major.

[Wilhelm Scream]

If you don't believe in a liberal education (meaning a broad education based on getting some knowledge of Western culture (including such things as art and history)), then go to a technical school. I was a science major, and in the long run, I think I learned as much in those "ridiculous" electives as I did in my major.

I agree with you 100 percent on electives. I think some of my more interesting classes were the ones that weren't major-related. I think that cutting down on these electives would make the average college graduate less well rounded.

I'm not sure I agree with the article's idea of mandatory retirement. If a university has a professor that happens to be the "go to guy" in his/her field, as a student, I would want to take his class over a new professor.

[PhantomPholly]

This was a well-thought article. It did skip a rather major point - that much of what is taught in classrooms could more easily and inexpensively be taught via self-study. Why have 1,000 professors all specialized in, say, Calculus 101 when you can record the top 2 or 3 (for variety only) and replay them to millions of students? After all, subjects such as this truly are unchanging, and forcing students to shoulder the overhead of a professor is tasteless at best and unethical at worst.

Frankly, there are some Undergraduate degrees which should be possible for a self-motivated student to accomplish in 2-3 years with minimal professorial involvement. It ought, therefore, be possible for a self-starter to obtain a college degree for only a few thousand dollars.

[Apatriot]

This was a well-thought article. It did skip a rather major point - that much of what is taught in classrooms could more easily and inexpensively be taught via self-study. Why have 1,000 professors all specialized in, say, Calculus 101 when you can record the top 2 or 3 (for variety only) and replay them to millions of students? After all, subjects such as this truly are unchanging, and forcing students to shoulder the overhead of a professor is tasteless at best and unethical at worst.

Frankly, there are some Undergraduate degrees which should be possible for a self-motivated student to accomplish in 2-3 years with minimal professorial involvement. It ought, therefore, be possible for a self-starter to obtain a college degree for only a few thousand dollars.


When I was a freshman in college, taking Calculus 125 (first level of calculus), the university decided that they could take their top lecturer to lecture to 200 of us on Mondays and Wednesdays for an hour each day, and then put us in smaller lab classes on Tuesday and Thursday to check homework, go over homework and give weekly quizzes and monthly (or so) tests. It was horrible. They discontinued the program after two years. Math is best taught in a smaller setting with interaction with the instructor.

I do agree that your model would be appropriate for the content-based courses, like history, lower level science courses ( besides the labs), etc.

One big approach that we are seeing is the use of online classes.

[BryanC]

Why have 1,000 professors all specialized in, say, Calculus 101 when you can record the top 2 or 3 (for variety only) and replay them to millions of students?

There are limitations to online and taped courses; I would never take a course that was not taught in person.

[Wilhelm Scream]

One big approach that we are seeing is the use of online classes.

I am not a big fan of online classes. There is a certain degree of learning that simply cannot be replicated outside of the classroom setting. In my experience, student-to-student interactions as well as student-to-teacher interactions suffer from the class being held strictly in an online environment.

If anything, I would think that online courses hurt universities more than they help. It's the "McDonaldization" of higher education.

[Apatriot]

I am not a big fan of online classes. There is a certain degree of learning that simply cannot be replicated outside of the classroom setting. In my experience, student-to-student interactions as well as student-to-teacher interactions suffer from the class being held strictly in an online environment.

If anything, I would think that online courses hurt universities more than they help. It's the "McDonaldization" of higher education.

Studies have shown that the average student has MORE interaction with the professor in online classes than offline.

Also, student to student interactions can be accomodated by use of online courses that have a regular meeting time--basically a scheduled online chat.

A good professor can produce an online class that is comparable to a live class. I've had a few.

[Apatriot]

There are limitations to online and taped courses; I would never take a course that was not taught in person.

I would never take a purely taped course. Online courses are a different matter. Especially at the graduate level, they can be a close equivalent to on-campus courses. I will admit I'm much more likely to read the class readings for online classes than on-campus courses. In a classroom, it's easier to bluff knowledge than online.

[Wilhelm Scream]

Studies have shown that the average student has MORE interaction with the professor in online classes than offline.

Also, student to student interactions can be accomodated by use of online courses that have a regular meeting time--basically a scheduled online chat.

A good professor can produce an online class that is comparable to a live class. I've had a few.

Which studies? I'd be interested in seeing that.

I've had great professors in person who hold lousy online classes. It really depends on how well the material translates to an online format.

(I will agree with you on not being able to bluff as easily in a online class!)

[PhantomPholly]

When I was a freshman in college, taking Calculus 125 (first level of calculus), the university decided that they could take their top lecturer to lecture to 200 of us on Mondays and Wednesdays for an hour each day, and then put us in smaller lab classes on Tuesday and Thursday to check homework, go over homework and give weekly quizzes and monthly (or so) tests. It was horrible. They discontinued the program after two years. Math is best taught in a smaller setting with interaction with the instructor.

I do agree that your model would be appropriate for the content-based courses, like history, lower level science courses ( besides the labs), etc.

One big approach that we are seeing is the use of online classes.

Yes, it will not work for all students in all subjects - however, any student capable of such an approach ought to have the option to try it and, if they succeed, skip the huge tuition fee which funds class and professor.

In my mis-spent youth I took Accounting 101 as an undergrad. The grad student teaching it was not a native speaker (or, as far as I could perceive, in any way conversant) in English. However, I found an on-line tutorial on the campus main frame (dating myself...) and was able to review and practice exercises on the whole semester's worth in only a few weeks. After I found that, I almost never went to class and got straight A's - for ME that approach worked well.

As in all new approaches, it should be used in a Champion/Challenger mode rather than simply replace current proven methods. Unlike most Champion/Challenger scenarios, however, after initial effort this method does not require extra teachers to provide.

[Apatriot]

Which studies? I'd be interested in seeing that.

I've had great professors in person who hold lousy online classes. It really depends on how well the material translates to an online format.

(I will agree with you on not being able to bluff as easily in a online class!)


If you've got access to a university library, here's the citation:
Lenhart, K. A., Lytle, J. S., & Cross, C. (2001). Analysis of large Web-based courses at the University of Central Florida. Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2001(1), 1117-1119.

I've had professors who were great in class, but bad online as well. It's more than the material. It's understanding how to use the online environment. Classes don't port 1:1.

[Wilhelm Scream]

Interesting article.
Nice MLA-style, too.

[PhantomPholly]

There are limitations to online and taped courses; I would never take a course that was not taught in person.

That's fine - I would expect you to pay full tuition for the additional service.

On the other hand, I have no doubt I could have completed my entire college curricula in about 1/3 of the time (and probably with better scores all for having actually reviewed the material) had such an option been available.

It's time to strip the mystique from "college" and make it available to the masses at mass prices IF THEY WANT IT.

[PhantomPholly]

Which studies? I'd be interested in seeing that.

I've had great professors in person who hold lousy online classes. It really depends on how well the material translates to an online format.

(I will agree with you on not being able to bluff as easily in a online class!)

Those studies doubtless focused on tenured Professors - who rarely if ever taught undergraduates at my college.

Instead, classes were taught by non-English speaking "Teaching Assistants" who oftentimes could not do anything more than read verbatim from the book with an accent so thick no one could comprehend them.

Again, I agree that certain sorts of classes do not lend themselves to self-study (art and dance and singing come to mind, and I won't venture into value judgments).

However, this isn't an either-or proposition. The simple truth is that if we don't use every teaching method available and, where possible use the least expensive, then we really haven't made any worthwhile effort to advance education past the Victorian era.

[Apatriot]

That's fine - I would expect you to pay full tuition for the additional service.

On the other hand, I have no doubt I could have completed my entire college curricula in about 1/3 of the time (and probably with better scores all for having actually reviewed the material) had such an option been available.

It's time to strip the mystique from "college" and make it available to the masses at mass prices IF THEY WANT IT.


MIT already does this, at least in terms of having the courses open to the public. Now, unfortunately, there is no testing mechanism.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

[BryanC]

Instead, classes were taught by non-English speaking "Teaching Assistants" who oftentimes could not do anything more than read verbatim from the book with an accent so thick no one could comprehend them.

I am fortunate to have not had to experience such a class. I might change my mind with regards to online classes if I ever do.

[PhantomPholly]

MIT already does this, at least in terms of having the courses open to the public. Now, unfortunately, there is no testing mechanism.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

Very cool - yet without a testing mechanism you earn no "credit" for having taken the course. In this way the school is actively withholding the reward for the work done, so it amounts to nothing more than a study aid.

Testing centers are fairly common these days. A good curricula of courses (and perhaps some entrepreneur will simply "borrow those of MIT and other universities which are provided free of charge?) coupled with a testing facility ought to be enough to get accreditation as a "University" and thus allow granting "degrees" for satisfactory completion of a suitable collection of courses.

[Voxpopuli]

Very cool - yet without a testing mechanism you earn no "credit" for having taken the course. In this way the school is actively withholding the reward for the work done, so it amounts to nothing more than a study aid.


I believe, the knowledge gained is the reward.

Those studies doubtless focused on tenured Professors - who rarely if ever taught undergraduates at my college.

Instead, classes were taught by non-English speaking "Teaching Assistants" who oftentimes could not do anything more than read verbatim from the book with an accent so thick no one could comprehend them.


LOL

So true, I was a Comp Sci major and foreign T.A.'s with thick accents were the norm. :wall:

[PhantomPholly]

I believe, the knowledge gained is the reward.

I really hope that was meant sarcastically. Almost no one spends years of labor and invests years of potential earnings simply "for the experience." In the modern work world, a degree is currency plain and simple.

LOL

So true, I was a Comp Sci major and foreign T.A.'s with thick accents were the norm. :wall:

Yah, and we were the dummies who PAID for that "experience..."

Doh!

[Voxpopuli]

I really hope that was meant sarcastically. Almost no one spends years of labor and invests years of potential earnings simply "for the experience." In the modern work world, a degree is currency plain and simple.
No, I was serious. These free classes are opportunities to gain access to free teaching. Many would consider the knowledge the reward. It isn't much different than auditing a class at a University. Except that you have to pay to audit a class and this is free.



Yah, and we were the dummies who PAID for that "experience..."

Doh!

My parents paid for my first one and my company paid for my second one. I just suffered through the torture of not understanding the foreign T.A.'s