Co-written by Priscilla Taylor, Audrey Romano, and Adam Hocker
At the heart of the discourse about the past, present, and future of higher education is storytelling: the stories told of the value of higher education, the key players, as well as new possibilities. There is no argument that higher education is being disrupted by online education, which offers affordable and convenient education to wider variety of students, worldwide. The reality is that more and more employers put more value in competency rather than in degrees and institutions. Experience and how one wields knowledge are greater assets in acquiring a job, while any relationship to an institution is only really appreciated on a social level. As Shirky’s illustration states, when “learning comes unbundled from the pursuit of a degree just as songs came unbundled from CDs,” the a-la-cart education will have a greater value and ROI for the student. Christiansen et al. (2011) backs this up by stating that “quality can only be measured relative to what customers value in their own context—their job to be done—and relative to their alternative solutions” (p. 21). Whether it is a resident program, a blended program, or an online one, the expectations of the students will guide their perceived quality level of their education. This once again comes back to the original question of why universities exist and who their target population is.
“For-profit Online University” Video
In the video satire, the students perceived their flexibly affordable “FPU” experience as a highly convenient education of high quality because it satisfied the job they hired it to do. What is surprising is that they feel so despite the lack accreditation, the blatant for-profit marketing, the lack of security, and the sacrifice of accessibility. It’s so convenient, in fact, that “if you have a credit card, you’re already enrolled in For-Profit University”, allowing students to bypass the application process entirely, and turning their non-selectiveness into something they market.
There is also a prevailing cynicism that runs throughout the video. “FPU” is exactly what it says, it is for-profit, therefore it monetizes every aspect of what it offers. The idea of a “thought coin” is both laughable and not that far from the mark. By creating its own digital currency, it ensures that all of your money is funneled through the “FPU” system in as many ways possible (i.e. purchasing food, avatar personalization, entertainment, even academic integrity). “The more you pay, the more you learn.” The idea that you can buy class points to use on test, while thankfully still fictional, could appeal to the lowest common denominator of online student because there are people who rather buy a good grade on a test or project than actually do the work.
Shirky said that colleges should provide “laser focused” programs to get students hired. In the video, “FPU” guarantees the job of “digital farmer” to all its students. The job itself is essentially going through thousands of image captchas to make enough “thought coins” for two Panera sandwiches a day. Virtual slave labor wrapped in Panera bread.
If higher education follows the same market trend as the computing and steel industries, as Christensen proposes, the more accessible and open for-profit online universities stand to push out the traditional universities entirely as they improve their product. The video plays on the fact that the public want universities to be more efficient believing that it will cut down on costs for students. In addition, postsecondary students are looking for a personalized learning experience that is based on their interests and their plans for the future. By and large, they are not finding it in traditional institutions and they are being drawn to new learning models that claim to offer them the personalization they are looking for.
The video also addresses the issue of college rankings. Arising from the “incestuous cocktail party,” ratings place greater emphasis on exclusivity and financial resources of universities as opposed to their academic rigor. Yet, it is those rankings that are held on to so tightly by prospective students and their parents in selecting a school.
New Visions for Higher Education
A new vision for higher education brings with it hopes of reaching larger numbers of students. According to Shirky, the new narrative is that “it’s possible to educate a thousand people at a time, in a single class, all around the world, for free.” And once you imagine educating a thousand people in a single class, it becomes clear that open courses, even in their nascent state, will be able to raise quality and improve certification faster than traditional institutions can lower cost or increase enrollment.
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have been offered as an avenue to educating masses of students at a time. Many universities such as Stanford, Penn State, Harvard, and MIT have embraced this new model of education and have begun designing and offering courses. Penn State’s own motivations for entering the MOOC market are to:
- Enhance reputation and brand,
- Reinforce leadership in online education,
- Recruit [new and former] students,
- Contribute to the common good,
- Enrich F2F, hybrid, and online designs,
- Conduct pedagogical research or experimentation.
The strategy behind it is still based on the business model to increase revenue as well as the other models by which they operate. While MOOCs are gaining traction, it is important to note that the cost of resources that goes into creating a quality MOOC is far greater than what goes into an average resident course (e.g. Penn State’s Epidemics MOOC with eight faculty members, ten graduate students, instructional designer, and multimedia staff). Based solely on the readings, it doesn’t seem like a sustainable model that can compete with the very real threat of disruption that more focused online universities pose. However, there’s obviously more factors to consider, and Penn State claims success in that the returns they’ve seen from the MOOCs more than justified the resources spent.
Brandon says
So we can ask, when the affordances of technology allow us to unbundle songs from albums, we have lost the necessity of buying a whole album, but have we lost something else as well? Perhaps owing to the affordances of vinyl, cassettes, and CDs, 10 to 12 songs bundled together became the norm, and so that is what artists did whether what they produced warranted it or not (two or three hits, the rest as filler). Some artists embraced the form, making concept albums or at least songs that flowed into one another. This is one thing we might lose, when people only buy one brick in The Wall.
How does this translate into higher ed? Not directly, but I think Wenger provides insight into the difference. Whether F2F or online, communities of learning still apply, but these communities are very different things. We need to be talking about these differences… as I’m sure we will.
Zach Lonsinger says
Brandon, I like your reference to losing the necessity of buying a whole album and I thought you were going to keep going on that idea, picking it apart. I think higher education is well on its way of unbundling our album (the degree). What if students were able to choose what they learned, and customize their own degree. I don’t want the whole degree, I just want the core elements. What would this look like? Certificates? Badges? Would they hold more weight than a degree? I would argue it depend on who you ask and when you ask. I think, and hope, badges will be the future of higher education. If someone wants to learn about public speaking and forestry, why not offer them the option to get a public speaking badge and forestry badge, or set of badges, to show that they are certified in these areas? Why do they need a whole diploma? It doesn’t seem logical to me. It seems as if every group this week touched on this idea of the value of higher education.
Katie Bateman says
We come again to this idea again of why do we need the whole degree. For some albums (if we stick with that analogy) all the songs are great, some you get one or two. College courses are the same. I think it would be fairly generalizable to state that everyone has that course as an undergrad that puts you to sleep, was uninteresting, or you found unrelatable (mine was Economics. Ugh!) It becomes a tick mark on a list in the way of a piece of paper, and a costly one at that. Even when we had records, cassettes and CDs, you still had the option of buying the single for significantly cheaper than a whole album. But those of us that were invested, interested, intrigued by an artist did, and sometimes found great gems. (I’m looking at you Hanson’s Middle of Nowhere. More than just Mmmbop.) So how can we offer the duality so everyone gets what they need?
Isaac Jason Bretz says
I have not seen evidence that “open courses, even in their nascent state, will be able to raise quality and improve certification faster than traditional institutions can lower cost or increase enrollment”. The attrition for Coursera MOOCs is about 95%. Granted, not everyone who enrolls in a MOOC is looking for a certificate/credential, but when only 5% succeed is does say something about how appropriate a particular scheme might be for the education needs of most students. My freshman year was a looooong time ago, but I do not remember myself having the study skills or the competencies to complete an online course even if such things had existed back then.
Leah Bug says
Staying with the analogy in this discussion, picking a few songs from the album and ignoring the rest can create very egocentric individuals that only give thought to their specific style of song, or discipline. Again, I think it goes back to the importance of hearing other songs that you may not understand or like, but makes you realize others like them and maybe you should try to see what they like about it. So learning about other disciplines and perspectives help you to hear and understand other ways of thought and can ideally lead to intelligent discussion and decisions, not only in life but also as part of being an informed citizen.
I also was struck by the statement in the post “experience and how one wields knowledge are greater assets in acquiring a job, while any relationship to an institution is only really appreciated on a social level.” I would argue that depending upon the institution, it is much more than social. By working with professors who are leaders in their field, enculturation into said field can open up all sorts of doors upon graduation. The affiliation to an institute can help when looking for jobs and fellow alumni happen to be on the hiring committee. So for some institutions, it is just as much about the knowledge as it is the networking and connections made during the degree acquisition.
Michael Sean Banales says
Why not, I’ll try to stick with the album analogy as well.
I think the trouble is whether or not the artist intends for the album to be an “album” or if it’s intended as a bunch of individual songs. Like a traditional education, sometimes you do genuinely need the entire album if you’re to get the full experience. However, the majority of communications majors at my own university of study did not need the whole experience and it felt like their classes were individual songs with a few hits that were truly important to them (not to be mean to communications majors, but it’s just the first example to come to mind as a friend of mine was a communications major). I imagine it’s probably that way with a number of other college degrees as well. There’s also the question of broadening your horizons, but I think the analogy starts to break down here a bit.
Granted, as Isaac mentioned, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the evidence this would work either. I think this needs to be developed further and tested, but I think the potential does exist. I don’t remember myself having the competencies or study skills for an online class either when I was a freshman, but that could potentially be a fault of secondary education instead. However, that’s a discussion I don’t desire to start just yet.
Koun says
Higher education setting seems to be situated in the grey area for me. What are the value that higher education institutions attempt to provide? Or what should be? Watching the for-profit University video clip, I though many people who go to the college nowadays gave up expecting quality from higher education though it is sad reality. So, getting the degree, and get hired using the degree became the purpose for the people regardless of whether an institution is online or face-to-face. That might be because people have different needs and institutions failed to meet the needs. So, the degree might be the only outcome they can get by paying for the tuition, and the others, for instance, engaging in learning communities participating in authentic projects in or out of class become optional. I don’t think MOOCs and other online education providers is any difference from that point of view. What matters is about the process of learning that the institutions aims to design I think. Will/Can Online and F2F institutions provide quality education -engaging students into communities of practice with the maximum use of different interaction medium? I feel more doubts on the former.
Leah Bug says
Our groups thoughts about your assumptions:
There is no argument that higher education is being disrupted by online education, which offers affordable and convenient education to wider variety of students, worldwide.
• Disruption vs disrupted technologies
• What is meant by disrupted technologies? It this being used without a clear definition?
As Shirky’s illustration states, when “learning comes unbundled from the pursuit of a degree just as songs came unbundled from CDs,” the a-la-cart education will have a greater value and ROI for the student.
• Assumptions about the business discourse applied to education (ROI)
The reality is that more and more employers put more value in competency rather than in degrees and institutions.
• Who are the employers that place this value?
Whether it is a resident program, a blended program, or an online one, the expectations of the students will guide their perceived quality level of their education.
• Assumption is that students make their own decisions regarding their perspective of educational quality
Will be able to raise quality and improve certification faster than traditional institutions can lower cost or increase enrollment.”
• Assumption that online education will raise quality, improve certification, faster certification, lower cost, and increase enrollment. What proof do we have here?
Based solely on the readings, it doesn’t seem like a sustainable model that can compete with the very real threat of disruption that more focused online universities pose.
• Assumption that these two educational models are competing.