Higher Education – Dangerously Close to Becoming Irrelevant
One of the more important planks in the 2008 Democratic National Platform is a focus on improving higher education. That may come as a surprise to many. In fact, other than concerns about the cost, the overall consensus of the general public is that America’s colleges and universities remain among the best educational institutions in the world.
However, experts have begun noting that higher education is facing a critical time. Back in December, we acknowledged the work of Michael Wesch of Kansas State University. In our post, “If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words,” we took an in-depth look at the growing digital divide plaguing college campuses.
But Wesch was not the first to document that today’s typical college classroom is completely out of step with the business world described in Thomas Friedman’s, “The World Is Flat.”
Higher Education – In Danger of Becoming Irrelevant
In his 2006 report to the Panel on Innovative Teaching and Learning Strategies for the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, David Wiley, Ph.D., offered a painful assessment of the current status of higher education in America. The former Director of the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning at Utah State was unequivocal in his criticisms, informing panel members that “higher education has adapted very little” to the changes described by Friedman in his bestselling book and is therefore “in very real danger of becoming irrelevant.”
Consider Wiley’s description of the typical college classroom experience.
“Students are inside a classroom (tethered to a place), using textbooks and handouts (printed materials), they must pay tuition and register to attend (the experience is closed), talking during class or working with others outside of class is generally discouraged (each student is isolated though surrounded by peers), each student receives exactly the same instruction as each of her classmates (the information presented is generic), and students are students and do not participate in the teaching process (they are consumers).”
In contrast, consider what the same person experiences when she is outside the classroom:
“From her dorm room / the student center / a coffee shop / the bus a student connects to the Internet using her laptop (she is mobile), uses Google to find a relevant web page (a digital resource which is open for her to access). While carrying out her search, she chats with one friend on the phone and another using instant messaging to see if they can assist in her search (she is connected to other people), she follows links from one website to another exploring related information (the content is connected to other content), she quickly finds exactly the information she needs, ignoring irrelevant material (she gets what is important to her personally), and she shares her find with her friends by phone and IM (she participates in the teaching process).”
Wiley’s critical point however does not merely concern the world of education as it relates to the student’s non-academic world. The huge discrepancy between the two experiences matches the current division between the classroom setting and that of the business world, the classroom and research in the fields of science and technology, etc.
Changes in Curriculum
In addition to the actual classroom experience, it is important to see the changes that are occurring based on curriculum content. Access to the latest research and the development of an accompanying skill base are no longer unique to the university environment. Wiley offered:
“Once upon a time, the university library was the primary repository of research like peer-reviewed journals and monographs. Today, initiatives like the Public Library of Science and pre-print services like Arxiv.org provide individuals from around the world with a legitimate alternative source of research findings.”
In addition:
“Once upon a time, a college or university’s faculty was the primary repository of technical and academic expertise in a community. Today, technologies like email and instant messaging put seekers of expertise in touch with faculty at many universities as well as professionals, ‘pro-am’ hobbyists, and others from around the world almost instantly.”
And last, but certainly not least:
“Once upon a time, the degree programs of our colleges and universities were the credentials most highly valued by employers. Today, certifications like the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert, and the Red Hat Certified Architect certificates are sometimes worth more to an employer than a four-year degree in computer science.”
The Positives
Given that real world experiences are so incongruous with the current academic setting, Wiley and others have begun to ask, “what is the real value of higher education?”
According to Wiley, in order for the college experience to remain relative, “the university experience must align more closely with its societal context and participant base. Higher education must continue its efforts to become digital and mobile, while working to become significantly more open, connected, personal, and participatory.”
Higher education has begun falling into step in at least one area. Wiley believes the current movement toward greater openness through the OpenCourseWare (OCW) initiative is at least one step in the right direction.
“I believe that openness is the gateway to connectedness, personalization, and participation. Openness is a catalyst for further innovation,” offers the Utah State faculty member.
“As a faculty member, if I want to connect my course materials to prerequisite materials from classes students have already taken in order to create review opportunities or provide remediation, this connectivity is possible only if both I and the students have access to these materials. Without this openness, there is nothing to connect to, and the level of connectivity my students expect is not attainable.
“As a faculty member, if I want to personalize the experience for my students – or more importantly, if I want to empower my students to meaningfully personalize the experience themselves – we have to be permitted to edit and customize the materials we will use. Without this openness, nothing can be changed or adapted, and the level of personalization my students expect is not attainable.
“As a faculty member, if I want to engage my students in creating and contributing resources, tutorials, and other study materials to a class, this is much more easily done when the course material repository is open. Without this openness, there is no space for the students to make contributions, and the degree of participation in the experience our students expect is not attainable.”
Survival of Higher Education
According to experts, the Internet and wealth of developing technology provide young people outside of education with a sense of “openness, connectedness, personalization, and participation” that is simply not found at the university level today. Those experts indicate that for America to move forward, higher education will need to better align itself with the rest of society.
It must be noted that in closing his presentation to the panel, Wiley referred to the words of W. Edwards Deming.
“It is not necessary to change,” stated Deming. “Survival is not mandatory.”
The idea that America’s colleges and universities are effectively educating the next generation has become suspect. And unless these institutions of higher learning overcome their prevalent inertia, irrelevance appears to be a certainty.
Flickr photos courtesy of Josie Fraser and Andrew/W.
15 comments
While I agree that institutions of learning need to make some changes to fit in to this connected and globalized world in which we live, I think it is pretty premature to say that higher education is becoming obsolete. While the field of computers may value certifications over a college degree due to the rate of obsolescence in the industry, that is not the case for the many other degree options offered by colleges and universities.
The only two things that currently keeps the university from being irrelevant is:
1) The still relatively low information-literacy of students and relatively low sense of what they want to learn. In many cases, they still can do better with clear laid-out courses and curricula than without.
2) The relatively low availability of high quality online learning materials, and high quality online tutors who can make up for gaps in tools like Google and Delicious (that is, not gaps in data, but gaps in findability).
But it’s already done. Universities as institutions will not survive. Their buildings will find another purpose, possibly having something to do with learning, but not necessarily so. The idea of campuses will fit perfectly in the coworking/cohousing age though.
Very nice article!
I must add that in this sense it’s quite funny that you reference to David Wiley as “David Wiley, Ph.D.”. On the other hand, we still need to bridge the old and new world, so maybe we can better let the Ph.D.’s and Dr.’s do the talking to the officials.
I don’t necessarily think that schools are obsolete, but I do feel that universities do a poor job of staying on top of what is actually going on in professional fields. Technology changes too fast and the politics and bureaucracy within large institutions makes them unable to adapt. In some cases this is a huge disservice to the student.
What a bunch of bull. What University is he at that he can change his course material? And Univ teaches one how to assimilate information and solve problems. If they have to compare a degree to a CCIE then yes, that school sucks ass. Having developed some of the CCIE course work in the 1990s I can tell you tjat is a marketing program by Cisco.
This article is a joke. If it were about high school I might agree!
a pile of bull crap really… universities werent established for computers alone.. sure the software industry is the major hype now but hu’ll certify the physics/bio/chem/arts/psycology/masscomm/etc/etc grads? and hu’ll teach ur company founders to think? high school? bah… and if ur talking bout certifications well any dolt can get tht just mug up some nonsense and go vomit it on the exam.. before ppl start to belittle higher education, they shld look at the higher ed elsewhere.. then they shld analyze y they think thus and they’ll see tht they’r sayin it by puttin $$ above knowledge which is the main tenet of uni edu..
Another article attacking university and completely missing the basic point that university is not supposed to be a preparation for the workplace (as much as employers might wish it to be), it’s a preparation for life.
If you train for a job, you’re not doing a degree, you’re doing an apprenticeship.
An MCSE is useful for a couple of years. A degree is useful for your whole life.
While I agree with Daniel that “university” is one of the best preparations for life….how could anyone make the argument that it is is NOT supposed to be a preparation for the workforce. If it is not supposed to be a preparation for work than what is?
And secondly, as this article states….colleges must align themselves with society and society/life is becoming more technologically advanced than ever. So if certain colleges cannot keep up with the advances of this modern age…or refuse to…they will in fact become irrelevant.
I had the privilege of attending one of the best schools in ND, which is one of, if not the best state in America for education. What I found upon attending college was a curriculum geared for what I learned freshman year of High School. America’s colleges were once a great thing, but our high schools throughout America need to do a better job of prepping everyone to a high standard, so that our Universities can raise their standard, instead of catering to poorly educated students.
And while it MIGHT be helping in some places, the “No Child Left Behind” act is severely crimping states like North Dakota. The message seemingly being sent is not to teach the kids too much too early, or else we won’t be able to improve enough each year to meet the standards. Thank goodness I graduated before it went into effect.
The author clearly does not understand the difference between education and training. The role of a University educator is to ensure that the students can ask the right questions rather than just have prepared answers.
I would also like to know how many workplaces allow Web 2.0 software (blogging etc.) to solve commercial problems. Industrial espionage is a big issue and all companies protect their IP.
That does not mean Universities do not have to change. But to blindly adopt technology will lead to failure.
[...] week we noted the thoughts of Professor David Wiley of Brigham Young who had the audacity to suggest that higher education could be on the verge of [...]
[...] back in May for The Chronicle. But if folks thought our assessments of higher education, “Higher Education, Dangerously Close to Irrelevant,” and “Charles Murray – for Most People, College Is a Waste of Time,” were a bit [...]
[...] Ongoing readers of OpenEducation.net will not be surprised to learn that the new study reveals a higher education system lagging in technology [...]
Another reason why traditional colleges could become obsolete is the fact that so many college grads can’t find jobs, despite having gone into debt to finance their education. This will make more people think twice before starting college. Also, the social environment in the colleges is getting increasingly bad, as so many students go there to engage in rowdiness and drunkenness rather than to get an education. That also makes it worth asking whether the colleges should be getting such an enormous amount of public money when the same information is available through alternative means like online courses.
I really enjoyed this article and I think this topic is not brought up enough.First of all I come from a family of educators (teachers) and school administrators. In my opinion higher education is not only obsolete and unnecessary for many people but a rip off.If college is such a preparation for life what were we doing the entire time in primary, middle,and high school? There is no equivalent to on the job training, no college can provide you with that experience, as much as people like to claim otherwise the vast majority of people attend and pay big money to colleges in hopes of being able to earn that money back with a good career and thats it. NO one would attend otherwise.What the OP was saying was that the information widely available on the internet and how easy it is to share data or experience etc with new technology, has come so far as to say a person could possibly achieve the same knowledge without attending a college in many areas of study and since a college does not give you real world experience what difference would it make? I personally think kids should have a basic knowledge of the base subjects and then at an early age say maybe high school only study a curriculum they are actually going to use someday and if not at least they will have some sort of skill , instead of forcing kids to always study material they will never use and likely forget after graduation.
Leave a Comment