Future of Higher Education – Students Need to Be the Impetus for Change
As high school students contemplate college and their choice of major, they would do well to consider some of the current buzz about the future of higher education. Many experts are questioning the failure of these institutions to adapt to a changing society.
Last November, Kent Pitman, was one of those folks raising some concerns. In “College: An Overpriced Monopoly” Pitman offered some excellent points as to why the current system may well be outdated.
More importantly, he offered some suggestions for the next generation of students, ideas that reinforce the growth of the online education model even as he suggested the eventual demise of the traditional on-campus, four-year program.
Too Much About the Sheepskin?
The first interesting Pitman assertion is that colleges today are selling degrees to students. But he is not talking solely about those diploma mills that provide a worthless sheepskin for a few dollars.
No, Pitman is suggesting that all colleges are guilty of this endeavor. The only difference is that the established schools ask for a significant commitment from the student before providing that diploma: four years, 120 hours of coursework and tens of thousands of dollars.
Pitman notes that in theory, during those four years students master certain skills and gain the requisite knowledge necessary to be successful in their field and future career. But what has come to matter far more is something other than the knowledge gained.
Instead, all of society has come to support the notion that it is the degree that matters, that without it your future will be far more limited, your earnings far lower, and your chance at a long successful life almost nonexistent.
At the same time, as Pitman notes, we are seeing a very extraordinary development. In what is considered an incredible opportunity for the public at large, “MIT has made its online courseware of about 1800 courses available online for free.” Several other highly-thought of institutions have followed suit.
Now everyone has free access to the curriculum of some of our nation’s finest schools. Learners with an Internet connection have been given the chance to develop significant competencies without so much as shelling out a dollar.
But there is one thing missing. Completing the MIT courses (or those of another school) at home leaves you without the critical component valued by society, a degree.
Pitman insists that this “is a cue that something is amiss.” Looking deeper, Pitman has this to say about the move by MIT: “At the same time as it (MIT) offers knowledge to many, it seems to me to also say, ‘we’re secure in our understanding that our value is in our name, and we’re keeping that just as scarce as it was before, even if the understanding we offer is made ubiquitously available.’
“Of course, they might be saying that the lectures just aren’t good enough to get across the course material and that the real value of their program is in the ability to ask questions interactively. But I somehow doubt that. I think it’s about the brand.”
The Purpose of College
While it may be easy to knock the current structure, there is one thing that must be made clear. Society has come to value the bachelor degree credential so much (right or wrong) that aspiring workers must play the game if they are to have an opportunity in today’s challenging job market.
At the same time, one might ask, what ultimately is the purpose of attending college? Is it solely to earn that sheepskin or is it about a series of life experiences that helps one develop as a person? Should it be all that and more?
Here Pitman speaks bluntly: “The first goal of college must be to get a proper basis for getting started with a job, and preferably a career.” Yet he goes further: “anything beyond that is great, but is not a basic educational requirement.”
Therefore, while it may be nice to be able to set four years of one’s life aside to “really think and grow in ways that don’t even relate to work,” that perhaps has become just too costly for a large number of American families. Today students need credentials; they do not necessarily need the peripheral experiences associated with college.
The key element is that students must first carefully consider how much they are willing to expend to earn the credential. But at the same time, students must determine for themselves what experiences are essential to preparing them for that career of choice.
Pitman notes: “I think the solution is to get more serious about packaging the education part in a way that doesn’t force you to bundle in all the extras.
“Yes, it will be sad for some people to miss out on all the extras. But it will be sadder still if you hold rigidly to the elitist line that college must be all or nothing. Because that kind of statement is spoken by someone who’s used to getting the all, not the nothing.”
The Future of Higher Education
Pitman insists that higher education must change its format moving forward, that the acquisition of knowledge and skills has to become the thing that matters. If he is right, then the time has come for us to determine a way to figure out how to measure whether or not a student has acquired that intellectual background.
But the vast majority of schools are not currently seeking such a path. Instead, according to Pitman, most colleges today “seem focused on selling a particular type of hand-holding at a premium price rather than on maximizing the amount of learning per dollar.”
In contrast, the future will belong to those schools that can deliver their product at a price students can afford to pay.
Add to that notion a rather different development, the notion of a very different, 21st century working world. Whereas once upon a time a single four-year period of education might prepare a person for a lifetime of work, the general consensus today is that future jobs will last only a few years.
With people potentially changing careers several times, the idea of attending school once in one’s younger years seemingly will have to give way to a pattern that features frequent returns for further schooling. That will also mean the development of additional credential forms, a format other than the traditional bachelor’s and master’s degree program, to distinguish this move towards life-long learning.
Online Education Flourishing
Given the developments noted by Pitman it is easy to see why online education has become the choice for so many students. First, it eliminates those bundled extras, focusing instead on the learning. There is no costs for room and board and no athletic fees.
Second, while professors design courses and hold students accountable, there is no hand-holding. Credit comes from demonstrated mastery of the curricula, not some time sitting in a classroom. Students progress at their own pace and do their coursework at a time and place that makes sense for them as individuals.
Lastly, online education is far more attuned to the needs of those with multiple interests and responsibilities. If new credentials are to be earned, most workers are not able to simply stop working to attend classes. Family and work demands are not conducive to on-campus classes or four-year commitments.
Meanwhile, one would think that other models would soon emerge that provide similar flexibility. Such models would need to be constructed with input from a number of different constituent groups: students, business leaders, government officials and college administrators.
Collectively, these groups must create new models that address some very valid Pitman points, particularly the need for new methods of measuring the attainment of knowledge and skills. Most importantly, those measures must lay to rest the basic premise that a four-year bachelor’s degree is somehow the primary yardstick.
Meanwhile, future high school students will likely face some difficult decisions as new forms emerge that seek to compete with the current models. According to Pitman (and others), the current situation is nothing but a monopoly, an overpriced one at that.
Unfortunately, current structures are likely to remain resistant to change unless students begin voting with their feet. If students were to begin to heavily opt for schools that are more in line with the 21st century, perhaps the impetus would be in place for traditional college programs to evolve accordingly.
But if students continue to buy into the current format (such as they currently do) then we can expect very little in the way of changes from higher education.
