

Making universities obsolete - ananthrk
http://matt-welsh.blogspot.com/2012/01/making-universities-obsolete.html

======
sunahsuh
The author has a very limited view of the function of universities. There was
recent longitudinal study that confirmed what many of us who attended college
already know: a vast number of people who attend college don't actually learn
anything (particularly in the fields of business, education, social work and
communication). [1]

If you get down to it, probably the biggest function of a university is
social: if you majored in an engineering discipline, think about your industry
connections. How many of them were classmates in undergrad? Elite universities
have served as social hubs for the upper class for centuries and the
networking function of college and university is invaluable. I'm not using
this as an argument for keeping the existing university structure, but if the
author really wants to make universities obsolete, he needs to think about how
one might facilitate this and other functions. (I haven't even touched the
subject of research, which many professors at R1 universities think of as
their primary purpose, _not_ teaching. "Teaching" is an unpleasant job you
offload on adjuncts and TAs.)

We've had institutions that function like the ones that Matt Welsh envisions
for thousands of years. They're called libraries.

[1]
[http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_la...](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/01/18/study_finds_large_numbers_of_college_students_don_t_learn_much)

edit: added citation ;)

~~~
mahyarm
To be honest, college was pretty much useless from a social/networking
perspective for me. Dev & other social meetups, working and so on have been
significantly more useful.

I had a commuter college experience and I bet unless you have the social
skills, fortitude and setup (such as living in dorms) to take advantage of the
social benefits of college, you wont get many social benefits out of it.

~~~
thomaslangston
I would agree in that college was useless from a professional networking
perspective (moving to a different state compounded my issues).

For me college was primarily personal social growth, professional
credentialing, and educational support network. I think the last two of these
can be offloaded to the internet for any abstract subject (not anything that
requires creating a physical artifact instead of a digital representation).

------
jiggy2011
Interesting piece.

A few points.

Firstly I entirely agree that having access to a video of a lecture is much
better in many ways than attending live. I have a terrible attention span and
I remember sitting in classes paying attention then having my mind slowly
drift away for just a few seconds, by the time I'd snapped by I'd sometimes
completely lose the context of the example the professor was explaining and it
was really hard to mentally catch up, sometimes I couldn't and I'd just end up
with a set of half comprehensible notes to revise from.

Of course your not going to raise your hand and say "sorry I wasn't paying
attention could you please repeat", but a video does not judge you like that.
Pause it or rewind and get yourself a coffee , look up something you didn't
quite understand on wikipedia for an alternative explanation then return to
the video.

Of course there is no reason for lectures to be an hour long either, simply
break it into 2 half house sessions with space for questions in between which
could be done via a chatroom which the lecturer answers when they return.

I'm sure I would have got much better grades at university had I had access to
all of the lectures via video, whenever I want to brush up any CS I just watch
youtube videos from MIT , Berkeley etc and I learn so much more per hour than
I did from my "traditional" education.

Another point.

This part raised a question to me:

"Presumably the idea is that if you can't get through a course in the 12-to-13
week semester then you deserve to fail, regardless of whatever is going on in
your life and whether you could have learned everything over a longer time
span, or with more help, or whatever. "

How much of your university degree is there to prove what you know and how
much is there to prove your capacity for learning?

I've often struggled with some concepts that others have found easy and
sometimes vice versa, but I can get a bloodymindedness that I _will_ get to
grips with something even if it takes me 10x the time.

How much should learning speed be represented vs sheer determination?
Sometimes in the real world you will run into situations where you need to
learn something very quickly because there simply isn't the time.

Should someone who takes 5 years to get a degree be considered lesser than
someone else who does the same degree in 2? Assuming they get the same marks
awarded.

~~~
CJefferson
> Should someone who takes 5 years to get a degree be considered lesser than
> someone else who does the same degree in 2? Assuming they get the same marks
> awarded.

To be honest, I think they should (unless they are taking the degree part
time).

If it takes you over twice as long to learn something, that means we can
probably expect you to take twice as long to learn new things?

In practice, I have never seen a student who took 5 years (and therefore
repeated 2 years on a 3 year degree) who ended up getting a good final grade
(although I am sure there exist exceptions somewhere).

------
impendia
> Can someone remind me why we still have grades?

I had a calculus student, begging me to pass him. He'd failed my course, he'd
failed the same course twice previously, and if he failed a third time he
would never be allowed into the engineering school.

It gives me no pleasure to crush dreams or to fail students, but do you want
this guy, say, designing bridges?

~~~
calibraxis
In the startups I've been part of, we simply test them, and look at their
portfolios (GitHub). They've been pleased to hire competent dropouts, and
generally don't emphasize some BS grade. (And once in the company, people get
a deeper idea of their skills.)

 _[Edit: after reading _delirium's correction below, I made a couple small
changes. I've got a cold, and I'm afraid I haven't made my point well.]_

I'm perfectly fine if students aren't graded (or if grades are a strictly
private matter between the student and teacher). Many teachers think so too,
so-called "radical" teachers, but of course they unfortunately have bosses...
a few teachers get away with it, particularly in more democratic schools where
students are more in control, but not enough do.

Personally, I learn all sorts of subjects, and the notion of someone
conventionally grading me... would degrade the whole experience.

~~~
_delirium
I haven't seen the first part be true, perhaps outside of startups. Companies
like Google and Microsoft definitely look at degrees and GPAs. It's not the
only thing taken into account, but whether your GPA is 1.8 or 4.0 will
definitely impact your chance of getting an interview. Even more so at more
BigCorp engineering places like Lockheed or Aerospace Corp.

In fact that's mostly why the "radical" teachers' bosses force them to give
grades; UC Santa Cruz's 1950s-80s experiment in giving narrative evaluations
instead of grades was mostly ended because employers demanded grades. If it
hadn't been for outside pressure on the administration, mainly from employers
and students worried about employment prospects, much of the faculty would've
liked to continue the previous approach (though support was less strong among
engineers and computer scientists, who for various reasons were more in favor
of a letter-grading model, and saw the narrative-evaluation model as too
"soft").

~~~
calibraxis
Ah excuse me, you're absolutely right — I have a strange blindspot where I
think that startups I've been part of are "the software industry". (I have a
cold right now, and maybe thinking too foggily to post my views. Thanks for
the correction.)

------
mrlase
I disagree with his points.

Beginning with his "failure #2";

>The common argument is that we need grades in order to differentiate the
"good" from the "bad" students.

No, no its not. Its to show that you've learned the material. He goes on to
say:

> Presumably the idea is that if you can't get through a course in the
> 12-to-13 week semester then you deserve to fail, regardless of whatever is
> going on in your life and whether you could have learned everything over a
> longer time span, or with more help, or whatever.

12-13 weeks is plenty long to learn the material for a course. A student is at
a college to learn. It should be their top priority to learn the material
during the course.

As for "failure #3", lectures have been used for hundreds of years because
they work. You gain insight from someone very knowledgeable in a field that
you might not get at first without it being pointed out to you.

He also seems to miss the fact that for science courses, you need labs. You
cannot do chemistry labs online. You won't be able to do field work in biology
by watching a video.

A somewhat agree with point #1, but more so to the fact about how expensive
college is. That needs to be changed.

You lose the overall _atmosphere_ of a learning environment through online
courses, and that is not something I'd want to give up.

~~~
arctangent
> 12-13 weeks is plenty long to learn the material for a course.

The course has presumably been designed so that a motivated and intelligent
student can understand it in this time.

But what happens when life interferes with a student's plans? I can think of
lots of reasons why a student may be distracted by legitimate life events in
this period of time, e.g. illness, or a family wedding/birth/death etc.

Online courses do give you the flexibility to work around things like this.
They also allow people with full time jobs to access the material at a pace
which suits them.

~~~
slowpoke
I don't know why you are getting downvoted, you present valid objections to
the assumption that everything will always go smoothly. Education should be
highly fault-tolerant instead of punishing failure which might not even have
been in your power to prevent.

------
LeafStorm
The problem isn't lectures. I am taking two mathematics courses this semester
that are taught primarily by lecture - Linear Algebra and Discrete Math.
Sitting through the Discrete Math lecture would give _anyone_ the impression
that lectures are a horrible way to teach - the professor is largely
disengaged and just runs through his lecture notes, most of which are already
in the textbooks. Homework is the traditional "go do these hundred problems
from the textbook" affair.

The Linear Algebra lecture, on the other hand, is what lectures _should_ be.
Dr. Hong (who I am naming because he is awesome) is engaged with the class. He
answers everyone's questions, and will call you out if you aren't paying
attention. And more importantly, he always thoroughly explains the process and
makes _sure_ you understand it (and for all the matrix operations we have
learned so far, he also makes sure you understand how to _generalize_ it to
larger matrices) before you walk out of the classroom.

Then, the homework is optional (though he does joke about killing you if you
don't do it.) The goal of the homework in this case isn't to help you
understand the material...that's what the lectures are for. He gives homework
so students can become _efficient_ at the process after they understand it.

So I don't think it's the lecture/homework model that's really broken here. A
disinterested instructor will kill the course no matter whether you're
lecturing in a classroom and doing problems at home, or lecturing on the
Internet and doing problems during class. What's broken is that lecturers
don't focus enough on the process and the concepts, instead running through
multiple examples and hoping the students pick something up along the way.

(At least, for mathematics. I'm not sure how well this teaching style would
translate to other disciplines such as history, composition, or even biology.)

------
phreeza
Let's not forget that universities are among the oldest institutions we know.

They have managed to adapt many times before. So while their current methods
might be slightly outdated, I doubt they will be becoming obsolete anytime
soon, they will merely change their mode of operation to include new
technologies.

~~~
twelvechairs
Like libraries?

[edit] More seriously though I think 'universities' as we know them are
important for particular things. What is likely to take off in the future
however is good independent accreditation for private-study. The most
important failing of universities at present is that you can hardly ever
fail...

------
f4stjack
The problem with universities is they are taking the easy way out: grading
instead of teaching. Nobody cares what you have actually learned, including
yourself. As long as you get that A or B and be qualified for obtaining that
diploma, everything is crystal clear.

But this approach creates a rift between teacher and students. Nobody cares
about actual learning, students see the teacher only as a source for getting
exam answers and teachers only see this glamorous profession as a chore to get
paid.

This approach however, loses the fat and makes the education more leaner IMHO.
No money and no diploma is involved and you are there because you really
really want to see/learn/do whatever the teacher is trying to convey. As for
the teacher this makes his/her work much less tiring, you record it once and
can change it after you got exposed to biomass. You can change stuff in your
teaching and get instant feedback. If this is not amazing for the both of the
elements involved in the teaching (teacher & student) I do not know what is.

------
bmj
Ivan Illich's vision for education may finally come to fruition.

Matt could have expanded his risks a bit more, at least to point out that no
system will ever be perfect, and, ultimately, every student is different.
Completely razing the current system may not be a great idea, because some
students _need_ the classroom setting (of course, as Matt points out, many of
these students are left behind anyway because the playing field is often
tilted toward the strongest students). That said, I suspect many other
students would do very well in a more open setting (or, ideally, some
combination of the two).

------
jwingy
Probably the biggest barrier to the success of online universities is
convincing others that the credentials from a online university are worth
their weight. If someone could come up with a good, reliable way to prove
that, then I think we'd be well on our way to the true meritocratization (is
this even a word?) of education.

If standardized testing and related work are good enough for college
admissions, would something similar be sufficient for more specific course
work?

~~~
randomdata
Others aren't really interested in your credentials. University is a personal
achievement thing. As long as you feel the education you received is equal or
greater than what you would have received in a brick and mortar institution,
you should be happy with that, no?

With that said, most people do place a lot of value in the connections they
made during their time in school. I'm not sure those connections can be built
by online institutions. That may have a dramatic effect on opportunities one
has later in life.

On an unrelated note, I had a teacher in high school several years ago that
figured universities were already obsolete at that time. It's interesting it
is a topic still in debate. Perhaps he was a man ahead of his time; he
teaching style certainly was.

~~~
ahelwer
I would say credentials do indeed matter, although yes they are overshadowed
quite a bit by professional networks.

Outside of simply procuring a job, they matter even more. As an example, the
company I work at offers professional education services on CUDA and OpenCL
(with other HPC architectures in the works). One of the guys who teaches it
did his masters in EE at Stanford. I don't think the impact of that can be
overstated when selling the service to companies.

------
dagw
There are several universities around that have been running continuously for
over 700 years. I imagine that a change in popular teaching trends is
something they've seen many many times before and successfully adopted to. I
see no reason why universities won't adopt to this one as well and then
happily keep going.

------
brador
Universities work because there's an ongoing belief that they lead to a
reward. We are now seeing that break down.

A replacement is needed. But what could be a better system for providing high
level skills with a measure of ability?

------
michael_dorfman
Let's remember that there is a lot more to universities than undergraduate
education.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Indeed, but trust me: If the undergrads were raptured away overnight, at least
fifty percent of the research faculty at the big research universities
wouldn't miss 'em. Sad but true. Less time teaching lecture classes means more
time for grants and projects.

And university sports should just be professionalized. The big-time sports are
a cartel designed to avoid paying young athletes while still selling tickets
to watch them play, and the small-time sports like the one I played could be
moved to public or private sports clubs.

~~~
jiggy2011
As a brit this is one part of american culture I don't understand.

Why are academic education and sports playing so closely tied together?

Most of our football players for example would be a complete waste of a seat
in any academic institution.

~~~
mechanical_fish
There is probably a definitive history of college sports in America that I
have not yet read. ;) It's certainly an interesting topic.

I think big-time college football and basketball may be pure historical
accidents. The sport of American football had its earliest success as an Ivy
League college sport; back when the rules were being firmed up Harvard was the
national champion. Wikipedia:

 _In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, gameplay developments by college
coaches such as Eddie Cochems, Amos Alonzo Stagg, Knute Rockne, and Glenn
"Pop" Warner helped take advantage of the newly introduced forward pass. The
popularity of collegiate football grew as it became the dominant version of
the sport in the United States for the first half of the 20th century._

And basketball was literally invented by a school sports instructor as an
indoor sport suitable for play in school gymnasiums:

<http://www.kansasheritage.org/people/naismith.html>

... and the inventor immediately joined the University of Kansas.

So basketball and American football may have been born and raised in schools,
which explains why they're historically tied to schools in their native land.

My impression is that the other big-time American college sports are late
additions to an existing big-time college-sports system. For example, baseball
grew up with a complete minor league system operating independently of
colleges, and college baseball has only become big within the last few
decades. And ice hockey is a regional college sport in the USA but in Canada,
where they take it seriously, it's a club sport with a hockey team in every
town larger than a critical size. (My impression is that the critical size may
be as small as "six people". ;)

------
keithpeter
_Social Limits to Growth_ , Fred Hirsch, higher education is a positional
good. It is about scarcity. The original author recognizes this at

"The real question is whether broadening access ends up reinforcing the
educational caste system: if you're not smart or rich enough to go to a "real
university," you become one of those poor, second-class students with a
certificate Online U."

------
akg
The current education system was built during the industrial revolution and
for the time I think it worked great. The problem is that the world has
changed since then, information is more fluid and free-flowing. People are
exposed to a wide variety of skill-sets and specializations. The old structure
no longer works and needs to be evolved the same way the rest of the world
has.

