Monday, May 27, 2013

 

Thoughts on College (Un)Bound



“These free courses developed by elite institutions that serve tens of thousands of students at a time will likely become the content provider for the core courses that every college offers.  By using online materials to power these face-to-face courses, colleges can accommodate more students with the same number of instructors or spend their limited resources on top professors teaching the courses best presented in a physical classroom.”  -- Jeff Selingo, College (Un)Bound, p. 178

What’s a “top professor”?  And on what basis should we assume that “elite institutions” offer the best instruction, particularly for introductory courses?

Jeff Selingo’s new book skims smoothly over a panoply of current issues in higher ed.  It would make a great introduction for a “current issues” course for folks who haven’t been paying attention. It makes a great summary of the kinds of topics that draw a lot of attention at conferences.  But for those of us in the trenches, it feels oddly removed.

I’ve written before on Selingo’s confusion of a graduation rate with an individual student’s chance of success.  It’s a basic category error, but one that undergirds much of his analysis.  It’s the kind of mistake that flatters the elites, since by dint of an exclusionary admissions process, they’re able to buy high completion rates.  

Much of the book suffers from the same flaw.  It naturalizes the prestige hierarchy of higher ed, and assumes that the changes to come will be on terms favorable to the current elites.  The Harvards and Williamses of the world can keep on doing what they’re doing; disruptive change is for the proles.

The quote above demonstrates the problem.  If we’re looking at “core courses,” on what basis should we assume that an institution that hires faculty on the basis of research, and that treats intro courses as a sort of dues-paying, would do a better job on, say, Intro to Psychology than would an institution that hires faculty based on teaching ability, and that defines teaching as the core of the job?  It’s possible that a research superstar is also a gifted teacher, of course, but it’s far from tautological.  And anybody who has taught in both exclusive and non-exclusive settings can tell you that a style that can work in an exclusive setting can crash and burn in a more inclusive one.

Going to the next step, how, exactly, do you expect the community colleges of the world to react to the prospect of outsourcing their core function to Harvard faculty with webcams?  

I was struck, in Selingo’s book, at the ratio of university presidents quoted to, say, faculty.  It’s a very top-down view, in which solving the problems identified by elites is taken to be an unproblematic good.  

I don’t think any of that is malicious.  It’s a well-meaning attempt to make sense of the world, based on input gathered rom the conference circuit and brief campus visits.  Community college travel budgets being what they are, the conference circuit is dominated by a predictable cast of characters.  It leans in a specific direction, by default.  Those of us embedded on campuses see things that aren’t necessarily visible from the Washington Hilton.

For example, at elite institutions, the lowest-level math class is usually Calculus I.  At community colleges, it’s usually College Algebra, which leads to Pre-Calc, which leads to Calc I for the students who go that far.  Most don’t, and aren’t required to.  Based on that, where are we likeliest to find the best College Algebra instructors?  And -- more basically -- what are the most effective ways of teaching that level of material to college students?  (Hint: they don’t involve watching videos.)

Or, take English.  The majority of community college students place into developmental English.  (The levels and definitions vary -- some separate “reading” and “writing,” for instance, and some don’t.)  Very few Williams students do.  Developmental English is intensely interactive, and it has to be; you don’t learn to write by hearing other people talk about it.  You read, write, get feedback, discuss, and write some more.  

Selingo’s willingness to accept that all things elite are good leads to some weird discontinuities in the book.  For example, he correctly highlights the tuition cost spiral of the last decade as a serious issue.  But he doesn’t differentiate by sector, or distinguish price from cost; as a result, the bloated increases at private research universities are lumped together uncritically with the flatlined budgets of community colleges.  In the “solutions” section, a similar myopia holds.  For example, he highlights study abroad and the Cornell New York CIty graduate campus as positive.  Um, okay, but those are both expensive as hell.  (And since the Cornell NYC campus won’t have any undergraduates, the grad students there will get even less development as instructors than they already do, and that’s saying something.) The one community college highlighted in the “solutions” section is lauded for a career-prep dual enrollment program that, in Selingo’s words, leaves out a lot of “distractions like sports teams and other extracurricular activities.”  The proles have to get right to work.  Meanwhile, the elites will gallivant around the world, becoming the global citizens that their lessers will never be.

The shame of it all is that Selingo has the opportunity to make a real contribution.  He has a platform, he has access to all sorts of people, and he writes well.  With some serious thought to class stratification, this could have been much more useful than it is.

Selingo is probably substantially correct in his assumption that without a conscious effort, the drift of change will be to deepen and ratify existing class stratification.  But for those of us who live in the trenches, that’s an extraordinary missing of the point.  We don’t need to be told that drift will lead to more of Billie Holiday’s warning that “them that’s got shall get, them that’s not shall lose.”  We know that.  The point is to figure out ways to prevent that, to allow more people -- and preferably everyone -- an opportunity to develop potential that may not have been obvious from the outside.  The point is not to leave Harvard alone while gutting Bunker Hill Community College.  That would be defeat.

Yes, cost is a real issue.  The real trick is in figuring out ways to make genuinely effective education economically sustainable on a mass basis.  That’s the important question.  How can new technological options result in better outcomes at community colleges?  How can the open-admissions public sector -- both two-year and four-year -- do a better job fulfilling its mission in the face of political and economic headwinds?  

Selingo and I probably agree on some of the specifics.  Regular readers know that I’m no fan of the credit hour, and that I think Baumol’s cost disease has been badly neglected in most accounts of how we got here and why it’s so hard to change.  I’m right there with Selingo on that.  We agree that the 15 week semester is, at best, an ad hoc construct, rather than a fact of nature.  I see no reason not to experiment with different calendars for different purposes.  And I suspect we’d agree that an educated citizenry is crucial for a functioning democracy.  

I read once that it’s unfair to criticize a book for not being the book you would rather have read.  So okay, this one does a nice job of glossing the worldview of the people who attend lots of national conferences.  We’re still missing the book that takes the paragraph above as a starting point, rather than an afterthought.  This is not that book.

Comments:
This is a thoughtful post, and it gets at some of the main problems of those viewing education only from the top (and in terms of elites and proles).

One issue I've been hoping you'd write about is what effect the MOOC movement will have on what I'm assuming are the high-cost programs like nursing. Wouldn't those programs rise in cost if they weren't subsidized by the courses that will be cannibalized by MOOCs?
 
So okay, this one does a nice job of glossing the worldview of the people who attend lots of national conferences.

This sounds to me a bit like Richard Florida's approach to writing. He appeals both to elite institutions (currently he holds a research position at the University of Toronto) as well as the "creative class" popular culture at large. He tries to get it both ways: if academia decides he's not so interesting, he'll take to the high-end public speaking circuit. Or vice versa. Or both.

The ideas you mention here in College (Un)Bound fall into the same pattern. They appeal to elite academic institutions and to jet setting Silicon Valley wags. At this point, Jeff Selingo can shoot for broke and have it both ways. Hence the not-quite-solid analysis and half-hearted commitment on some issues.
 
"The real trick is in figuring out ways to make genuinely effective education economically sustainable on a mass basis. That’s the important question."

What is "genuinely effective education"?

Whatever it is, why isn't it already being delivered in our high schools, on which we spend fantastic sums?

If genuinely effective education were delivered in our high schools, wouldn't it be economically sustainable on a mass basis? Isn't that the important question?
 
Thanks for pointing out the slippery notion of "top professor," which also seems to assume you would give the same lecture at Harvard and Directional State U. My sense is that those who teach at less elite places spend far more time thinking about how to convey complex ideas to students than do those at elite institutions.
 
I want to quote the opening of Dean Dad's post:

“These free courses developed by elite institutions that serve tens of thousands of students at a time will likely become the content provider for the core courses that every college offers. By using online materials to power these face-to-face courses, colleges can accommodate more students with the same number of instructors or spend their limited resources on top professors teaching the courses best presented in a physical classroom.” -- Jeff Selingo, College (Un)Bound, p. 178

I've spent a lot of time over the past two months looking into and thinking about the MOOC phenomenon, and I have somewhat mixed feelings about it.

The first thing I would say is that anyone who plans to write about them should take one and see how it actually works. I'm doing that (I'd planned to make it something I am interested in but that is outside my professional expertise; unfortunately, in the time frame I needed, I would up doing an economics course).

The one I'm taking is better in some ways that I had expected. The course materials are pretty good, especially the suggested readings (most of which are available online), but the course is basically a talking head with power point slides. In that sense, what differentiates this course from a face-to-face course is the lack of personal contact/interaction,

The discussion forums in the course (it is, by the way, a survey of world economic history since roughly 1800--the beginning of the industrial revilution) are active, but there's a lot of waste in them. In the absence of someone knowedgeable to guide the conversations, a lot of it devolves into unsupported opinion, or political rants (that does get quashed pretty quickly, though). A number of the students do seem to know what they are posting about, which is good (I've tried to stay out of most of it...).

Tha assignments (of which there are 3) seem to be well-constructed, but clearly they are not well-suited to assessing learning in anything like a comprehensive way. And they are peer-graded, which means it's a crapshoot.

But to talk about the promise or pitfalls withough experiencing one seems to me to be a bit overweening.
 
Let me go on from there. I think MOOCs have the potential, done properly, to kill off the large lecture class. If that happens, there will still be a lot of on-campus (in-house) activity. Managing discussions is one aspect of that; designing assessment instruments is another; a third is developing supplemental material for use in discussion forums/sections.

All of that will require a faculty member's involvement to coordinate everything, and a raft of TAs (just as we have now in large lecture classes).

And I think MOOCs will eventually split into a three-tier arrangement:

Tier 1: MOOC as entertainment. If you're familiar with the products of The Learning Company, they the concept should be immediately understandable. Enrollees who want this will pay a small fee (e.g., $25?).

Tier 2: MOOC as recognition. Many MOOCs currently offer "certificates of completion" to enrollees who do the prescribed work. These are not equivalent to course credit and will never be "transferable" in that way. Given the need to devise and grade some assessments in some way, I'd expect enrolles in this tier to pay somewhat more, maybe $50 or so.

Tier 3: MOOCs for credit toward a degree. Here's where the institutional component comes in. These would be enrollees who are in degree programs somewhere, and where their institution agrees to incorporate the MOOC into their curriculum. Monitoring/conducting discussions, grading, and supplementary material will be done by the institution. And the fee will be equivalent to tuition at that institution.

That is, of course, just my guess. But I do think the on-campus, 400-student intro lecture section in intro psych, or intro soc, or intro econ, or intro to American history/western civ/world history is about to die.
 
Whatever it is, why isn't it already being delivered in our high schools, on which we spend fantastic sums?

Because high schools have been turned into day care centres for teenagers who don't want to be there — a place their parents can park them where there will be at least minimal supervision.

And don't get me started on standardized testing and how the drive to 'boost test numbers' has sucked what little attention was going to academics…
 
Very interesting post. really informative. of all the blogs I have read on the same topic, this one is actually enlightening. Best advertising Agency in the world | top advertising agencies in pakistan | Marketing Agency
 
I have never heard of an elite who pretended the Class War didn't exist before, so this review was not very long.

 
Thanks for this post. I am so tired of this tidal wave of higher ed reform pundittry filled with unsupportable generalizations, written by people whose entire experience with higher ed is connected to Ivies and other elite colleges. We need to hear more from people working and teaching at non-elite institutions--the kinds of places these "reformers" would never send their own children too because of their prejudices, but also the places where the vast majority of students seeking higher ed are.
 
Likes considerably increase the popularity of your website and while using the suitable range rely; a lot of of us is going to be serious about your account. The providers which provide these remedies, will give you with non-automated or robot likes and provide you with reliable Instagram likes. The nice element concerning this is the fact they are instantly shipped in your account and that signifies you don't have to attend that considerably. And if you're a company enterprise, developing your Instagram likes will likely be effective. http://www.buyautoiglikes.com/instagram-likes

 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?