Higher Ed GPS: How Will We Get Where We Are Going?

There are many views these days about “the university of the future.”   Some believe the model already exists in institutions like Arizona State (especially the people at Arizona State).   Others believe that the future lies in consolidation, mergers and acquisitions that will result in a smaller but still largely traditional system of higher education.   We see some of this now as four year public institutions in some states are looking to merge with their community college systems.   Many agree that the future also will see large scale adoption of “innovations” such as online, competency based education, and alternative credentials. Of course these things aren’t really new, but they represent higher education catching up with the rest of American culture in the 21 st century. Still others, including myself, see a different evolution. It includes elements such as those just mentioned, but is more far-reaching. One manifestation of this evolution, which I think...

I complain a lot about the monolithic nature of American higher education.   In fact, it probably isn’t monolithic.   A monolith is characterized, for better of worse, as something solid, immovable, and uniform. Higher education is none of these.   It shows marked evidence of decay.   And rather than address the larger issues of structure and culture, it picks away at the symptoms and ignores the disease itself. The symptoms appear regularly in the pages of trade papers, and on convention agendas. For example, the debate over online education has now dragged on for decades, while the rest of society has embraced technology and its benefits.   There is also now much ado about the value of traditional degrees and whether they are worth the cost.   In addition, there is concern with the rise of alternative credentials and a possible return to “vocational” education. All of these issues are part of the considerable discussion about state of the liberal art...

Education Dive recently cited an article by Robert Ubell from NYU in which he encourages small private colleges to pursue online programs to avoid “going under.”   Although I agree with Ubell’s exhortation, his motivation is shortsighted.   The Dive analysis of the article rightly points out that education leaders in general need to “take the plunge” and get on board with online. Again, a worthy admonition, but it lacks resolve. Both of these assessments miss a basic point:   Online isn’t something that higher education SHOULD be looking into.   It is something that higher education MUST pursue if it is to remain relevant. The Dive analysis notes that higher participation in online initiatives is reported by faculty and institutions, and that “experiments” with “modest investments” in technology have produced promising financial results. It is suggested that sustained success will depend on things like faculty buy-in and coordination with IT services, since the ...

(Continued from the previous post) The takeaways listed on page 6 of the CIC report demonstrate a lack of awareness concerning trends and the current state of online and “non traditional” students. A few examples follow. First, the report makes the astonishing claim that many instructors realize that a large number of today’s students are not “traditional.”   They are older, work full time and have family commitments, for example.   Thus these students have different needs, including convenient access and flexibility, things that online instruction provides.   How can any study of this type miss the fact that the number of   “non traditional” students has been a growing into a majority for decades?   Failure to address this demographic shift in students has led institutions to experience decreasing new enrollments and lower graduation rates, a reality that at least in part stimulated the study in the first place. The report also opines that online c...