What’s College for Anyway?

The duration of an academic degree program is not the measuring stick for academic achievement or knowledge acquisition ??? it is the assessment of learning objectives through demonstrated outcomes. I suspect that only the educators and students who are able to see education as a ???process???, rather than a ???seat time??? requirement will be able to truly value the contributions and perspectives offered by Robert Zemsky and Lamar Alexander.

In 1995, Southern New Hampshire University was the only private university given a FIPSE grant by the U.S. Department of Education to find a way to reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of an undergraduate education. This grant funded a competency-based, three-year bachelor???s degree program that is completed in six semesters with no overload, summer, winter/spring break or weekend classes.

Students are grouped in cohorts for classes, but otherwise are integrated into university life ??? many are athletes and become leaders of student organizations, live in residence halls with four-year students and/or are commuter students. Students earn 120 credits, just as in our traditional four-year degree programs, but save a year of tuition and room/board expenses.

While other colleges offer three-year degrees, it appears that their four-year programs have been compressed into three years, thus requiring students to take extra courses during regular semesters, during winter/spring breaks and/or during the summer. Using this model of ???compression???, I can understand why educators might have concerns. This compressed shift in education is simply a change in the speedometer.

As Zemsky stated, ???We need a dislodging event that will just make everybody question all of the assumptions simultaneously instead of one assumption at a time. And to me, the three-year degree would do that.??? For more information on the three-year degree program at Southern New Hampshire University, please visit: http://www.snhu.edu/2530.asp.

Just in Time Learning, Competency Based learning, On Demand learning.

The education system has done a very poor job of educating itself about the information revolution. Where and when the same lecture can be rebroadcast a million times over, it is still being taught one to one, teacher to classroom. Think about a textbook. It is one talking to many, millions. The fact that film/television/ondemand presentations such as youtube now used at Stanford online has not been incorporated speaks volumes about a profound inability of the education system to educate itself.

I am proud of the one or two individuals you have here, senior shepherds, senior opinion makers, trendsetters who can bring the rest of the minds stuck in 19th century out in the here and present.

We speak of "education" "Education" "education" "educating the masses" and yet where and when those most able can teach the masses by using a one:millions teaching/instruction we shy away from it. Interested in teaching people in Africa? How about right here in the United States. Heck, how about everywhere? Take the Youtube model already incorporated @stanford online and run with it. Take the best of the best of the best in education, say Chemistry, say Calculus. Take the very best of instructors and have them teach the course. Record it and disseminate it to the masses. No? Not interested in doing that? Because everyone will have an Ivy league education? Not a buck in it for you? Then what does that say about your claimed intent?

I am actually very shocked to see 20 years after the net revolution and mainstream adoption of dissemination tools our system of education that claims Good Will To All Mankind not take the steps of educating the masses where and when it can. (A) Determine who the best instructors are via a competition (B) Record their lectures (C) Make it available to everyone. We have long ago past the stage where we can provide a good education to the masses. Why we are not doing it is an artificial means of separation of the haves from the have nots.

We speak about helping the people of the world. But do we really walk the talk?
Educational institutions have access to the best teachers and that teaching is no longer limited to in classroom presence. You need to understand we are dealing with a profoundly different paradigm. A paradigm that ironically the education system is late to adopt. Out system of education, our educators need a re education. A paradigm shift in thinking. "Yeah but is there a buck in it for me" will be unfortunately the crux of thinking - human nature - institution nature - whats in it for me if I give all this information out for free.

There are set number of courses (e.g. Chemistry, Physics, Sociology). There are fundamental steps. And there are teachers far better than others in teaching. Many hired to teach are doing it because they are forced to, they just want to do research. They are not the best of teachers. There are however some who excel and deserve international notoriety for their profound abilities.

The system has changed. The paradigm has changed. Early adopters are already incorporating the model. Its time to shift your thinking from Whats In It For Me As An Institution to Whats In It For Humanity. Ironically it is the nature of educational institutions to raise humanity, educate it. It would be amicable to see the walk matches the talk.

This article and the article by Lamar Alexander were both revealing and frustrating. They were frustrating in that no new ideas were put forward in either essay. Alexander's proposal simply recommended building the same "cars" [to use his analogy] but to speed up the assembly line. The panel revealed their dedication to the status quo by continue speaking of college as a collection of courses, credits and chronography. They continue to speak of college as a place to "pile on information" just in case the student might need it in the future. They also point their finger at a lack of change in college being due to the problems in the K-12 sector or that "the customers" won't buy it. This is akin to General Motors' complaint that " we build Hummers because the customers want them!" This, obviously is a bankrupt argument!
At no time did we hear about the true purpose of college - learning and understanding. What is it that students need to learn and how long will it take them to learn it with understanding. This will be a flexible and individual process, not based on time, credits, course sequence, or the burgeoning fund of knowledge that confronts all of us. Given that argument, we should spend our lives in school, because knowledge is growing so rapidly, no one can keep up.
However, storing up the prescribed fund of knowledge is not the purpose of school, at any level, and especially not at college. It is to become a life long learner, problem solver, and a builder and constructor of our own learning. Unless the colleges learn that lesson, they are on the same track as the American automobile industry.

W

I also find it puzzling that a community college class has roughly the same quality of education (considering class size) as a four year public college class.

You know that something is wrong with the state of America's private colleges when they almost universally have the exact same degrees and have very limited class options for paying significantly more than a public school. For example, there is virtually no private college with either a zoology or wildlife biology degree in par with that of a public college, and few that even try to allow the study in these disciplines by their class offerings. Also, no notable private colleges, and in perspective, few major public colleges, have been created in the past century, a letdown of American capitalism and innovation.

As an educator, first at Cal State Sacramento and now at a Community College in Colorado, I found the What's College for Anyway? article of great interest. Some of the panelists were focused on the economics of education, while others were focused on the learning outcome. We need to focus on the latter. My experience suggests that haste makes waste, and that we often produce graduates who do not have the requisite skills when they approach industry for employment. Yes, the core problem originates before the student arrives at the college level, but we need to take that necessary step back to gain perspective before we can move forward.

Whatever linkage exists between education and structured schooling should diminish by the time most reach grades 13-16. With emphasis now solely on career prep, shouldn't today's colleges be more rightfully called "trade schools"?

BTW, has anyone noticed that as a larger portion of our populace is now "college degreed", our mfg/tech base, living standards, culture and ennoblement have all assumed steady decline?

Whatever linkage exists between education and structured schooling is pretty well spent by the time most reach grades 13-16. With emphasis now solely on career prep, shouldn't today's colleges be more rightfully called "trade schools"?

BTW, has anyone noticed that as a larger portion of our populace is now "college degreed", our mfg/tech base, living standards, culture and ennoblement have all assumed steady decline?