Demand for online grows, but supply shrinks? Depressing!

Ever since MIT made its curriculum freely available online, its philanthropic feat has become a global trend. Colleges compete to add new classes to the Web's ever-growing free catalog. The result is a world where content and credentials no longer need to come from the same source. A freshman at Podunk U. can study with the world's top professors on YouTube.

I have nothing to disagree with the excerpt from this report in the Chronicle of Higher Ed.  I have streamed in more than a couple of videos from the MIT site.  One of those videos was Tom Friedman's talk at MIT on the "World is Flat"--it was the closest to having Friedman on campus to talk to my students.  One of the students was so impressed with his talk that she said she even talked with her church pastor about Friedman's observations.  (Elsewhere I have recorded my own reservations about Friedman and his penchant for metaphors, but that is not the focus of this blog!)

But, thanks to the Great Recession, OpenCourseWare is probably the last line item a resource-constrained university would pay for--after all, it means spending money on something that gets PR for the university but is to essentially hand things for free.  The Chronicle adds:

"I think the economics of open courseware the way we've been doing it for the last almost decade have been sort of wrong," Mr. Wiley tells The Chronicle. Projects aimed for "the world," not bread-and-butter clientele like alumni and students. "Because it's not connected to any of our core constituencies, those programs haven't been funded with core funding. And so, in a climate where the economy gets bad and foundation funding slows, then that's a critical juncture for the movement."

Yep, it is a dog-eat-dog world and, to paraphrase Norm from the TV show Cheers, OCW is wearing a milkbone underwear :-(

I think this is only a temporary setback, however.  it is only a matter of time before we accept that forcing students to do time in a classroom does not necessarily mean that gain the desired competencies.  On the other hand, a competency-based education means that it can be in any mode the students want, and at any pace the students desire.  This stupid factory model of mass production will end soon, and I will celebrate like crazy :-)  Finally:

Eventually, according to Mr. Carson's take on the unbundling story, online learning experiences will emerge that go beyond just content. Consider Carnegie Mellon University's Open Learning Initiative, another darling of the movement, whose multimedia courses track students' progress and teach them with built-in tutors—no professor required.
"And then, ultimately, I think there will be increasing opportunities in the digital space for certification as well," Mr. Carson says. "And that those three things will be able to be flexibly combined by savvy learners, to achieve their educational goals at relatively low cost."
And social life? Don't we need college to tailgate and mate?
"Social life we'll just forget about because there's Facebook," Mr. Wiley says. "Nobody believes that people have to go to university to have a social life anymore."

Let us go one additional step and clarify something here: it is NOT the role of a university to provide for social life for students. That is an awful waste of time and resources.

Sue the college if unemployed?

So, in an earlier post I suggested that we have really reached that fork in the road where we need to clearly articulate to students the value they gain from attending--physically--a university.
Elsewhere, I have even wondered whether higher education itself is almost a scam, if it is already not one. A pyramid scheme of sorts. (Yes, a harsh criticism. But, then ....)

A few months ago, I remember telling a colleague that it is only a matter of time the public sits up and figures out that there is something seriously wrong in higher ed, and then students and their families will even start suing faculty and universities for educational malpractice. The colleague was sure it would not happen. Well, I do not know if it has ever happened before, but it has now:

Trina Thompson, 27, filed a lawsuit last week against Monroe College in Bronx Supreme Court.

She is seeking to recover $70,000 (£42,000) she spent on tuition to get her information technology degree.

Situations like this are what I had in mind when I wrote in a recent op-ed that:

To make things worse, fresh college graduates find that there are few jobs waiting for them, a situation that has grown even worse.

After all the time and money invested, students and their families begin to wonder if college degrees were worth it.

Having seen quite a few students in those circumstances, some, including me, wonder whether higher education is an economic bubble that is waiting to burst, similar to other bubbles that already have burst in this Great Recession.

Anyway, in the Monroe College lawsuit, we can console ourselves that the graduate is not challenging the idea of higher education itself. But, to me this is nothing but the opening shot. Why? Because, as far as I understand it, there are supposedly two reasons for college:

• To enhance the economic productivity of people
• To help them have an enriched life

Yes, education helps with economic performance. With few exceptions, literate people are more productive than illiterates. With few exceptions, high school grads are more productive than those who have completed only six years of schooling. But, division of labor and the increasingly complex society does not mean that everybody needs a college degree--not at all.

When we begin to point out such facts, then the pro-higher education lobby (yes, every single one is a lobbyist, whether registered as one or not) falls back on the much higher value that education delivers but, unfortunately, which economic calculations cannot capture. A neat bait and switch that some student will soon challenge in a court of law.
BTW, if high school graduates do not seem to have an idea of how education is good for their soul, well, how is that magically going to happen in the 13th year of education or the 14th? And, is there anybody who believes that all those partying away as undergraduates went to universities because they believe higher education will lead them to a richer understanding of life?