MITx and the future of Higher Education

[yeti2213]

Came across this article in the chronicle... http://chronicle.com/article/MIT-Mints-a-Valuable-New-Form/130410/

In anticipation of changing careers and applying to Clinical Psych PhD's I took several low level psychology classes (Intro, Abnormal, Social etc). As 30 year old with professional experience I was struck by something that I could not have seen at ugrad. What a complete waste of a highly trained professional to stand in-front of a 50 to 60 young kids and talk about something that could just as easily be done by a mix of interactive technology and video. For higher level courses focused not on facts but on knowledge application, and understanding the limits of what is known I would never want to get rid of a human teacher... but for many many basic level classes it seems like overkill.

Giving more of a role to teaching technology would have lots of benefits. It frees up professors for research, it reduces the cost of higher education (which is becoming painful) and allows for the same knowledge to flow to a larger number of people. As someone interested in an academic career I am inclined to embrace these sorts of innovations rather than resist them. Curious what others think.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Came across this article in the chronicle... http://chronicle.com/article/MIT-Mints-a-Valuable-New-Form/130410/

In anticipation of changing careers and applying to Clinical Psych PhD's I took several low level psychology classes (Intro, Abnormal, Social etc). As 30 year old with professional experience I was struck by something that I could not have seen at ugrad. What a complete waste of a highly trained professional to stand in-front of a 50 to 60 young kids and talk about something that could just as easily be done by a mix of interactive technology and video.

Educating (which isn't just reading off of powerpoint slides) is far more than "static" information transfer. Things like PowerPoint are good aides, but they fall flat when context and application of knowledge is required. If learning consisted simply of rote memorization, maybe it could be a substitute, but learning is actually a more complex construct.

Giving more of a role to teaching technology would have lots of benefits. It frees up professors for research

Yes....in most cases.

it reduces the cost of higher education (which is becoming painful) and allows for the same knowledge to flow to a larger number of people.

Negatory Space Ghost! This is a common fallacy about the delivery of online/mixed model education. It is true that the overall cost per student to the university is less, but that savings isn't passed on to the student, instead it is used to supplement more expensive expenditures by the university (administration, rising facilities costs, etc). The rate of tuition increase is not congruent with the national inflation rate, which is scary when you consider there have been many cuts to staff and services.

As someone interested in an academic career I am inclined to embrace these sorts of innovations rather than resist them. Curious what others think.

I would be very wary of them because it will undercut the "value" of the educators, which results in lower pay and often fewer jobs.

I'm actually a strong supporter of technology, though in the realm of education it should only every be complimentary not supplementary to traditional educational methods. My former career was actually in technology and new media (consulting w. the private sector on technology integration), so I get many of the selling points, but I also recognize there are still limitations, even with 10+ years of technological advances. Unfortunately people are willing to accept "good enough", which is fine for certain things...but not for education.

 

[Pragma]

I am enthusiastic about online technology becoming a good complement to other educational methods, but I second T4Cs concerns.

I think Universities are looking at this as a way to earn money while packaging it in other ways. So, while it is promising and probably makes sense for some courses, it is likely to be abused.

 

[thepug]

Negatory Space Ghost! This is a common fallacy about the delivery of online/mixed model education. It is true that the overall cost per student to the university is less, but that savings isn't passed on to the student, instead it is used to supplement more expensive expenditures by the university (administration, rising facilities costs, etc). The rate of tuition increase is not congruent with the national inflation rate, which is scary when you consider there have been many cuts to staff and services.


What? It's greed you fool. Higher education is kind of a racket.

A Big 10 school brings in like 650 million per year in tuition alone. Some have endowments approaching 2 billion system-wide.

Where does the money go? My significant other worked as a teller while going to college in the same area and a guy came in with personal check from the school for 4 million dollars. Can you say

Your comment is like saying a lemonade stand that charges 500k a glass puts a good share of its gross income into overhead.

I don't know how many undergrad classes I sat through where I literally could have just sat at home and read the slides and gotten an A. Probably about 85%. Don't even get me started on H.S.

 

[thepug]

I am enthusiastic about online technology becoming a good complement to other educational methods, but I second T4Cs concerns.

I think Universities are looking at this as a way to earn money while packaging it in other ways. So, while it is promising and probably makes sense for some courses, it is likely to be abused.

Damn right. Just slap "Columbia" or "Penn State" on it.

It's all about selling an idea.

 

[yeti2213]

Educating (which isn't just reading off of powerpoint slides) is far more than "static" information transfer. Things like PowerPoint are good aides, but they fall flat when context and application of knowledge is required. If learning consisted simply of rote memorization, maybe it could be a substitute, but learning is actually a more complex construct.

I am sympathetic to that argument. Knowledge is much more than the recitation of facts. And teaching is a lot more than the sharing of them. However, "static" or "powerpoint" is pretty limited way at looking at what technologies can do. A combination of interactivity (problem solving exercises, adaptive information sharing, games etc) and intelligent algorithms, I suspect will sufficiently replicate what a good human teacher can do at some basic levels of knowledge transfer. This need not be as well, just good enough. And I really don't understand your objection to good enough. If its good enough to get students to the later part of their education with sufficient ability that professors with PhD's can sharpen them up and make them employable... then it seems like mission successful.

Negatory Space Ghost! This is a common fallacy about the delivery of online/mixed model education. It is true that the overall cost per student to the university is less, but that savings isn't passed on to the student, instead it is used to supplement more expensive expenditures by the university (administration, rising facilities costs, etc). The rate of tuition increase is not congruent with the national inflation rate, which is scary when you consider there have been many cuts to staff and services.

Higher Ed and the diamond industry have both pulled off this trick of convincing the world their products are indispensable... and that value should not be a part of the consideration in consuming them. So why would they pass on savings to their consumers? I wouldn't if I was running a university. Its gonna take some external force to shake them up... many years ago I had thought for-profit universities might be that force. They have proved disappointing. Even worse value. I wonder if the impetus might be educational institutes from the rising powers (India, China etc). But the point is conceded. Baring a unpredictable and unlikely turn of events, its unlikely it will reduce the cost of education.

I would be very wary of them because it will undercut the "value" of the educators, which results in lower pay and often fewer jobs.

My former career was actually in technology and new media (consulting w. the private sector on technology integration), so I get many of the selling points, but I also recognize there are still limitations, even with 10+ years of technological advances. Unfortunately people are willing to accept "good enough", which is fine for certain things...but not for education.

The value and reward structure of educators are going to be under pressure from other forces anyway. Do you think this evolving two tier model of tenure track profs as first class citizens and adjuncts as second class citizens is sustainable?

Yes this would add to that pressure. Some people will lose, and other will gain. The tech industry, which you are familiar with and where I have spent the last decade, might be a good example. Basic programming type jobs that used to be steady well paying jobs in the generation before ours don't really exist in the US very much anymore. Instead there are higher paying ones for those that can figure out how to 1. innovate with technology or 2. mix good client contact skills, analytic skills and good tech skills. Sure there are fewer of these jobs and yeah they are more unstable... they demand more of a hustle to find and keep but are financially more rewarding. Education might go the same way if things like MITx take hold.

As for the technology advances point I suspect Roy Amara's observation that "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run" will hold true. We think it can do more than it can in the 2-5 year time frame and think it can do a lot less than it can in the 15-20 year time frame.

 

[thepug]

This will help solve the B.A./B.S. crisis where a 4-year degree is now nothing, but a hunting license that many folks just cannot afford.

While I doubt kids have to pass MIT admission standards to take a class, this does not mean they are not capable of attending MIT. I think just about every grad student out there, given a chance to go through H.S. again, would end up at Harvard.